The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Housing Bill: Second Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Housing Bill (NIA 24/01) be agreed.
It is 10 years since the introduction of any primary legislation in the social housing field, and 30 years since a Northern Ireland Assembly considered housing legislation. Therefore it is not surprising to find that the Bill is a fairly lengthy document that covers many important issues.
Before I consider the detail of the Bill, I wish to mention that extensive consultation has taken place over several years on its provisions. That consultation culminated in the publication of the draft Bill and its explanatory memorandum for comment in March 2002. More than 400 copies of the Bill were issued, and more than 250 responses were received. I am pleased to report to the Assembly that a significant majority of respondents welcomed the provisions. I thank all those who provided comments and helped to finalise the provisions before us.
The Bill contains 150 clauses and five schedules, and covers a wide range of issues. Members will be glad to hear that I do not intend to go through all of the provisions now. However, I shall mention those that have attracted most comment and discussion. The Bill contains measures to help deal with antisocial behaviour in social housing. Such behaviour is a blight on the lives of far too many people today, yet landlords and neighbours can do little to put an early stop to any nuisance or annoyance that affects them. I wish to give social housing tenants and landlords greater powers to help them to deal with the problem.
The Bill includes provision for introductory tenancies; increased powers to seek repossession of dwellings; the power to seek injunctions against perpetrators of antisocial behaviour; and the power to treat applicants as ineligible for social housing if they have been found guilty of unacceptable behaviour.
Introductory tenancies will give social landlords the opportunity to assess the suitability of new applicants. Conversely, they will also allow prospective tenants the opportunity to prove themselves worthy of a secure tenancy. If tenants prove to be unsatisfactory, repossession can be sought swiftly through the courts.
The other measures that I have just mentioned will enable social landlords to take effective action against persistent antisocial offenders. The grounds of nuisance and annoyance are being extended to cover any such behaviour by visitors to a dwelling, and unlawful activity by persons in the locality.
That will allow officials, such as Housing Executive staff, to give evidence in court about nuisance or annoyance in cases in which neighbours might be intimidated from giving such evidence. The Housing Executive, or a registered housing association, will be able to seek an injunction prohibiting a person from engaging in conduct likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance in the area, and persons found guilty of unacceptable behaviour may not be eligible for an allocation of housing.
Together, these measures will form a strong package of remedies to help deal with antisocial behaviour. However, I emphasise that repossession is a last resort; prevention is better than cure. The main emphasis will continue to be on mediation to help eradicate antisocial behaviour at an early stage and avoid the need for repossession.
The Bill also replicates to a large extent the existing scheme of grants to help with the renewal of private-sector housing. These grants continue to play a vital role in helping to improve standards in the private rented sector. Because the demand-led nature of the existing mandatory scheme inhibits the effective concentration of resources in areas of greatest need, the Bill replaces the current scheme with one that is largely discretionary. However, due to the essential nature of the disabled facilities grant, it will remain mandatory, with a discretionary option to grant-aid for additional facilities.
The provision of accommodation for travellers has been a contentious issue for some time. That is not helped by the blurring of responsibilities for providing traveller accommodation between district councils on one hand and the Housing Executive on the other. There should be a single authority with specific responsibility for dealing with all the accommodation needs of travellers. The Bill places that duty on the Housing Executive. In future, the Housing Executive will have sole responsibility for providing such sites as appear to it to be appropriate for the accommodation of travellers’ caravans. To assist in the transition, existing sites that are provided and managed by councils in Northern Ireland will be transferred to the Housing Executive.
Members will be well aware of concerns over the safety standards in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). Those houses form part of the private rented sector, and they provide accommodation for up to 30,000 people, mainly students. The Bill requires the Housing Executive to prepare and administer a registration scheme for those houses with the objective of improving their quality and safety.
Under the scheme, persons running a house in multiple occupation will have to register the property with the Housing Executive and comply with control provisions as to the number of persons occupying it. The registration conditions may include conditions relating to the management of the house or the behaviour of its occupants. There will be further consultation on the scheme’s details as the Housing Executive develops its proposals.
The Bill deals with a range of miscellaneous matters, including a house sales scheme for tenants of registered housing associations; legislative cover for existing extra-statutory Housing Executive schemes to compensate tenants for improvements and repairs that they have carried out to their homes; and other provisions to bring our legislation into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I want to mention briefly some issues that are not in the Bill. Processing legislation is a lengthy business, and the provisions in this Bill were finalised last year. Since then several further areas have been identified for which legislation is, or may be, required. The private rented sector and the role of the Housing Executive are likely candidates. However, they are not ready for inclusion in this Bill, and to try to make provision for them now would delay the Bill beyond next year’s elections, and it would undoubtedly fall. We have waited long enough to bring the provisions in this Bill before the Assembly. Let us now make the further effort to get it onto the statute book and leave the way clear for new legislation, if necessary, to cater for further provisions.
It is clear to me as the Minister responsible for housing that housing legislation is going to be a regular feature in the coming years, whether in this Assembly or elsewhere. This is an important Bill that many people are waiting to see enacted.

Mr Gerry Kelly: The Chairperson of the Committee, Fred Cobain, has business elsewhere and wishes to apologise to the House for his absence. I may make some personal comments at the end of my speech, but I am speaking now as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee.
The Minister has outlined the principles in the Bill, and we have waited a long time for this day. It is long overdue, and it is unfortunate that it has taken until now to deliver to the Assembly a Bill that has been in the legislative programme for the last three years. It was even about to be considered in another place before the establishment of the Assembly.
The Committee for Social Development has been calling for this legislation almost since the Assembly was formed. It was promised to us, and promised to us and promised to us. Now, with the mandate for the Assembly due to run out early next year, the Committee is faced with an enormous task over a relatively short period. Indeed, immediately after this debate the Minister will outline the principles of another piece of housing legislation, the Housing Support Services Bill, which will also have to be scrutinised by the Social Development Committee.
There are 150 clauses in this Bill. Thankfully, the Committee’s housing inquiry has given us a good grounding on the issues we can expect to face when we scrutinise it. We have visited the problems of the private rented sector, houses in multiple occupation, the rights of housing association tenants to buy their own homes and homelessness. All those subjects are covered in the Bill to a greater or lesser degree.
Unfortunately, we were unable to conduct the third element of our inquiry, which concerned antisocial behaviour. Getting the Bill through the Committee Stage will be difficult and may be contentious — in my view it will be contentious. We know that some people involved in the housing sector are critical of at least some of the Bill’s provisions. Similar legislation in England and Wales stands largely discredited. However, there is a different proposition in the North on this.
The Committee’s responsibility is enormous. It is conscious of the need to consult on legislation, and that should help to get it right. The Assembly has an obligation to be open and transparent in its business. However, we must avoid overconsultation, and a balance must be struck. All Members agree that we need action. The Committee has been pragmatic in this matter, and it sought and secured a practical commitment from the Minister. He agreed to the Committee’s request to release all the submissions his Department received in the course of the recent public consultation on this Bill, and the Committee has been studying them carefully.
At one time Committee members considered voting down the Bill at Second Stage by way of reasoned amendment because, in our view, it fails to keep pace with the changing housing situation. After much soul-searching, and being mindful that we represent all the parties, it was decided that there was enough in the Bill to make scrutiny worthwhile. However, the Committee does not underestimate the enormity of the task ahead. I am confident that members will rise to that task.
Unfortunately, there is precious little time to ensure that the Committee’s scrutiny is as comprehensive as it should be. If the Minister contends that that scrutiny is a matter of tying up loose ends, I say to him: if the Bill is not a radical overhaul of housing law, I am at a loss to know why we have waited so long. Perhaps the Minister will tell Members why that has been the case.
Undoubtedly, the Committee will want amendments made to the Bill. I ask the Minister to be responsive to those views. He should not be stubborn and stick rigidly to the Bill as introduced. The Committee has completed a report into the growing and worrying problem of homelessness, and the report’s recommendations had cross-party support in the House. I welcome yesterday’s announcement that more funding will be made available to tackle homelessness. That underlines the fact that there is a serious problem which may require legislative change as well as additional money.
Preventative measures are required in the strategy for tackling homelessness, and legislative provision must be made for that. If that cannot be achieved, I hope that the Minister will immediately set in motion arrangements for further housing law.
The Committee intends to agree quickly those provisions that are not contentious and to concentrate on areas where there is disagreement with the Minister’s position. The Committee will write to those who are interested in housing matters to establish the provisions that should be amended and what form those amendments should take. In the belief that housing impacts on poverty, health and education, the Committee will consult other Statutory Committees on those issues. I hope that those Committees will be able to respond quickly, so that the Committee for Social Development can report back to the Assembly. The Committee will do its best to do the Bill justice on the Assembly’s behalf.
Between now and May 2003, the Committee for Social Development will have to consider five Bills. If that situation is replicated in every Department, it will be a gargantuan task to progress legislation in the time allotted. However, the Housing Bill is important. The Committee believes that the existing legislation is outdated and copies British models instead of dealing with the specific issues that we face here. Although Committee members agree that the legislation must be approved before May, we must get it right and we must not rush the Bill through, because it will impact on generations to come. I hope that the House will bear with the Committee, and that Members will make their views known when the Bill is being scrutinised.
Many people have expressed their views on antisocial behaviour. The provisions on antisocial behaviour in the Bill are inadequate. The Committee has had many briefings and heard many presentations on homelessness that have been critical of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will be able to present those views later, and to proceed in a considered way and get things right.

Sir John Gorman: I am the leading advocate of those who are prepared to go so far as to turn away from the Bill as it stands. I totally support the view expressed by the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, Mr Gerry Kelly, that we ask the Minister and his advisers to take account of the huge changes that are being made in UK housing legislation.
In recent years three ministers in the United Kingdom have had responsibility for housing; Lord MacIntosh, Stephen Byers — God bless him, if He can — and Lord Rooker. This is probably a symptom of the fact that there is much dislike of what has gone on in social housing. Social housing is the reason the Housing Executive was introduced. Its role was to ensure housing for those who were unhoused, badly housed, poor and whose chances of bringing up a family in decent surroundings were quite bad. When I joined the Housing Executive many years ago there was a daunting task to be done, but it was done well.
The Housing Executive now sells 5,000 houses a year — it has done so for years and will do so for years — from its stock of 120,000. That stock used to comprise just fewer than 250,000 houses for social housing. The Housing Executive now produces, with a struggle, about 1,000 houses a year, so the loss to the Province a year is 4,000 houses for letting. That cannot go on. We have the highest level of homelessness in the United Kingdom, and it is increasing by 15% a year. I beg the Minister to pay as much attention as he can to the big changes that are taking place. Progress can be made in the time available to him.
I was at Harrogate two weeks ago listening to 2,400 housing specialists. The First Minister made the opening speech, and those who were listening to him were very impressed. However, Northern Ireland needs some radical re-thinking in respect of antisocial behaviour, for instance. Members should consider the private Member’s Bill tabled by Mr Frank Field in the House of Commons last week. He talked about the serious action to be taken against "neighbours from hell" who make life in some housing estates intolerable for others. Look at what is going on in north and east Belfast; neighbours from hell exist there, and the situation may get worse.
Given what the Deputy Chairperson said about the new attitude to funding — something which was also expressed by Lord MacIntosh in his Green Paper in December — I wonder if the role of the Housing Executive does not require a radical re-think. The Green Paper showed that the need for social housing in the United Kingdom generally is becoming more pronounced than it is in Northern Ireland.
I admire the Minister; I think he is one of the best Ministers that Northern Ireland has ever had, and I am sure that the whole Committee and the Chairperson, if he had been able to attend, would agree. The Minister is desperately trying to put housing here into its proper place in the twenty-first century, and the Committee supports him in that. However, the Committee does not believe that everything that is needed for housing is covered in the Bill. I hope that the Minister heeds that and uses his time in office as best he can.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
The Minister is right to say that something must be done now. Members cannot let the best be the enemy of the good. The good is bringing the Bill into existence quickly, but modified as much as it can be in the given time and with some herald of changes by way of another piece of legislation in due course.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: My Colleagues in the SDLP and I have examined the Housing Bill against existing commitments made by the Minister, against key principles that the SDLP is committed to, and against the serious housing needs of the community. It is a serious disappointment.
Members are aware of the North’s high levels of homelessness, unfit housing and shortage of public-sector housing. It was hoped that the Bill would begin to seriously tackle those issues, informed by the experiences of recent legislative change elsewhere to prove that devolution will make a difference to the people in Northern Ireland. However, that opportunity has been wasted.
Instead, we are dealing with a minimalist housekeeping exercise, a rehash of the dusty old reports compiled over the last decade — or, as the Deputy Chairperson put it, the last century — with little or no fresh thinking on today’s problems and little vision for the future.
Several issues will illustrate the points that I am trying to make. The proposal for introductory tenancies is unacceptable. It is not justifiable for the public sector to impose such status on tenants. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that such a measure would satisfactorily deal with problems such as antisocial behaviour.
The SDLP views housing as a fundamental right. It takes minimum international standards as its starting point and looks higher, to best international practice, as its aim. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights commits us to recognition of everyone’s
"right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care".
Moreover, the Executive’s priorities in the Programme for Government include tackling social need and social exclusion; ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to access decent, affordable housing; and securing permanent tenancies, within three months of application, for 70% of applicants accepted as statutorily homeless. That has been unanimously adopted by the House. Yet the Housing Bill sets out a method by which people can be evicted from public-sector housing and left without assistance if they are homeless as a consequence. Even worse, they are likely to remain ineligible for state assistance for an indefinite period.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the right to shelter ranks alongside the right to food and medical care. It is not a luxury, to be denied as a punitive measure — it is a right. Antisocial behaviour is a problem to be acknowledged and tackled, particularly given the scarce public resources available. It is a complex issue, of which housing is only one element. Just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to housing in the context of an essential standard of living, so must the solution to the housing problems be found in acknowledging the linkage with wider issues.
In other words, tackling antisocial behaviour is a societal issue that must involve, among others, the agencies responsible for employment, education, health, social services, criminal justice and social security. The Minister must introduce a positive and co-ordinated initiative such as that, rather than merely punitive measures to relocate and replicate the problem.
Once again, the Bill is found wanting strategically. Although the homelessness figures continue to rise, no clear plan exists to alleviate homelessness, and there is no duty on the state housing authority to assist the homeless. Instead, the Bill focuses on withdrawing support from some individuals, such as those evicted from public sector housing or people who are considered to be intentionally homeless. There is a danger that if the latter category is not carefully defined, not everyone who requires help will get it. If a homeless person is lucky enough to receive assistance, he or she will be granted an unsecure tenancy for an unlimited period. That happens in spite of the Programme for Government’s aim of granting secure tenancies within three months of a person’s presenting himself or herself as homeless. In that way, the most vulnerable people will be disadvantaged. The Committee for Social Development hopes and expects that, given his welcome and support for the Committee’s report, the Minister will ensure that the recommendations are reflected in the Department’s amendments to the section on homelessness.
The lack of traveller accommodation has been highlighted regularly; it is time to tackle the problem comprehensively. The Committee acknowledges the duty of the Housing Executive to provide sites. However, we wish to see that extended so that the Housing Executive would be required to meet travellers’ accommodation needs, which include group housing, service sites and transit sites. We trust that steps will be taken to ensure that the Housing Executive can fulfil that obligation through the purchase of land or sites as required.
The Bill contains some welcome provisions for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). [Interruption].
I am glad to hear that Members recognise my generosity.
Many students and others have endured substandard accommodation over the years. Therefore it is vital that a compulsory registration scheme be established to raise standards and eliminate safety hazards. All types of HMOs must be covered right across the North. The status of nurses’ accommodation, as well as accommodation that belongs to charitable organisations, is unclear. That is interesting. As we work through the stages of the Bill, we may achieve clarity on that.
Antisocial behaviour must be dealt with in a co-ordinated fashion, regardless of the status of management-type accommodation. Moreover, it is necessary to protect the list of private landlords from exploitation, criminal or otherwise.
The sale of properties by registered housing associations is a difficult issue. The SDLP has always supported Housing Executive tenants’ right to buy their property, and we endorse the equality argument in the proposed right to buy for housing association tenants. However, it is a cause for concern that there is no clear strategy to address the shortage of homes under public sector ownership. Sir John Gorman made the point that we can continue to sell homes to tenants only if we build replacements to house new families who will be afforded that same right. Otherwise, the right to buy homes will only be a right for the present generation. The SDLP firmly holds the view that there continues to be a need for publicly owned housing that is available to rent at a modest price and that the right to live in a home will always outweigh the right to buy a home. Therefore, the right of a low-income family to rent affordable accommodation will outweigh the right of a better-off family to buy up that affordable rental accommodation.
There are further concerns about the supply of specially designed or adapted homes, such as sheltered accommodation designed for pensioners, or houses adapted for people with disabilities. Clearly, we would not want pensioners and people with disabilities to be discriminated against. However, if such homes are not replaced those people will suffer from the lack of sufficient accommodation. Some of the regulations regarding the sales policy being operated by the Housing Executive need to be examined carefully, because they include good practice.
I referred to the need for greater investment in housing. Clause 125, which is aimed at levering in private money, would allow the Housing Executive to sell off a group of houses to a landlord if a majority of tenants agreed. The SDLP has concerns about the long-term value-for-money implications of such an initiative, and it seeks reassurance on the issue as well as on the accountability and transparency of the operation. Public sector investment must be guarded and consistent with Mark Durkan’s input to yesterday’s announcement regarding the reinvestment and reform initiative. The SDLP wants long-term investment in public services, rather than having them sold off.
We had hoped that the Bill would demonstrate a serious commitment to tackle the housing problems in Northern Ireland. With rising homelessness and housing shortages forming a central part of overall deprivation statistics, the Assembly and the Executive must work together to address the glaring social needs of the community. It is hard to believe that in the year 2002 we are having to campaign on issues that were alive in the 1880s — free sale, fixity of tenure and fair rent — "the three fs" of the land war. It is interesting to consider how far we have come.
Communities with housing shortages and homelessness often suffer the related problems of unemployment and poor literacy together with health difficulties. That is another reason why the Minister’s brief cannot be separated from the good work that is done in other Departments, for example, Carmel Hanna’s task force on employability and long-term unemployment, and the work to deliver Executive programme funds to tackle disadvantage. One cannot help but wonder how much better the Bill would have been if the Minister for Social Development had been more fully involved in the efforts of the Executive to address those community issues on a partnership basis.

A Member: Must the Member take every opportunity?

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I never miss it.
The SDLP seriously considered voting against the Bill in the hope that the Minister would come back with a more comprehensive and up-to-date attempt to tackle housing issues. However, as is consistent with our constructive approach to politics, the party has decided that it will give the Bill its reluctant support. We do so on the basis that there are modest improvements to the Bill that we would not wish to delay, and also because there is considerable consensus on amendments that need to be made. In fairness, I believe that the Minister is genuine in his commitment to some of those.
The issue is one of Members’ time and commitment. The SDLP is willing to work with its Colleagues on the Committee for Social Development to bring forward a wide range of amendments to the Bill. We trust that in so doing, the Minister will recognise and support the changes proposed, given the broad support for them.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am not sure how to follow all that — it was more like a wake than a celebration. It is astounding that someone who claims to have a social conscience could be so negative. In fact, the Bill augurs well for the future. It amazes me that certain Members can put so much misinterpretation and spin on issues when they stand in the Chamber, yet their press statements paint a different picture.
I welcome the Second Stage of the Housing Bill. It has been a long time coming and a long time in the making. However, I do not lay any blame at the feet of the Minister or, indeed, his Department. Rather, that blame rests elsewhere. Had there been co-operation from the Executive early on, we would have been debating this Bill 12 or 15 months ago. We should lay the blame where it belongs.
The Bill is comprehensive, but it will not be the panacea to all housing troubles. It is the basis on which to build and go forward, not, as we have heard, to be negative and keep looking back.
I particularly welcome the Bill’s provisions for dealing with antisocial behaviour. I suspect that the Member who has been most critical of the Bill to date will also be most critical of antisocial behaviour. For far too long, we have had to tolerate a situation whereby good tenants have been unable to live in their homes and have been at the mercy of the thug, the hood and the corner boy; but there is not, as yet, any legislation to deal effectively with that problem.
We have an opportunity to correct the situation today, but Members say one thing in the House and another to the public. I work with that Member’s colleagues in Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council. I know their views on antisocial behaviour and thuggery. Therefore, it behoves the Assembly to give its full support and for Members not to take a negative, inward or backward attitude followed by a little comment that we will go forward.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: What is backward-looking about the human rights standards that I quoted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Feedback from Housing Executive tenants shows that the Bill meets their needs. The Bill reflects what tenants have been telling the Housing Executive. It is amazing that Members should say that the Bill is repressive and should not be enacted.
I categorically stand with those who have fought for years to keep and maintain their homes, yet who have had to compete with the thugs, hoods and corner boys who systematically try to destroy their homes. Have any Members visited estates in Northern Ireland? Have they witnessed the aftermath of individuals’ taking control of estates? Had they done so, they would not have said what they did about methods to tackle antisocial behaviour.
I welcome the Bill. It is comprehensive, extending to almost 200 clauses. It is not the be all and end all. Rather, it is the basis on which we can start to go forward.
A good home is not a privilege; it is a basic human right. Housing in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years has changed dramatically. In this so-called terrible place in which we live, where we are supposedly underprivileged, it is ironic that 72% of homes are privately owned.
I could not agree more with Mr ONeill that good social housing is required and there must always be provision for it in Northern Ireland for those who cannot afford their own homes. However, I must also acknowledge that there are methods in place whereby people can purchase their own homes. I am thinking in particular of the Northern Ireland Co-ownership Scheme Ltd, which provides excellent facilities to assist those who want to purchase their own homes. That helps them to get onto the home ownership scheme. The Housing Executive introduced house sales approximately 25 years ago. I was the first to propose Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council’s support for that, because it adopted a good, healthy environment where social and private housing sat together. From that springs a good environment, and people’s lives have been enhanced immensely by it over the past 25 years. However, much remains to be done.
I also welcome the provision to give housing association tenants an equal footing so that they will be able, eventually, to purchase their homes. Anything different is incomprehensible. Every tenant, whether of the Housing Executive or a housing association, should have an equal right to purchase his or her home.
Homelessness is, unfortunately, on the increase in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that the Minister and his Department are sincere and that they are capable of tackling the problem. I suspect that the Minister needs no lectures on deprivation and people’s needs. His constituency has the worst housing in Northern Ireland. He is therefore well positioned and well able to tackle the problem of house disrepair that exists throughout Northern Ireland. I am pleased that he is in that position, because he has first-hand knowledge of deprivation, and I do not doubt his determination to deal with it.
The Bill is but a start, albeit a good one, and the Assembly should give it its unqualified support. To be negative about some aspects of it is perhaps to play to the gallery. Could anyone say that the Bill is not a progressive step in the right direction and a vast improvement on current provisions? The negative perceptions of some Members exist only in their own heads. The public has been crying out for these provisions for 30 years, and, at long last, we have legislation to tackle the issues that affect every Member.
I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I wish the Minister well with it.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I welcome the Bill. It is long awaited and reflects more flexibility in the housing rules and regulations. It is not perfect, but it is a good first step in prioritising the need to bring the law into line with social change.
Housing is as important as good health and, therefore, must be handled with equal urgency. There is a facility to amend the Bill — and all of us will use that — but the basic legislation must be there first.
Other Members outlined some of the provisions that the Alliance Party welcomes in the complex and comprehensive Bill. Members encounter problems daily with people who want to transfer, and I am glad that the transfer process was considered in line with other regulations that were introduced in the past. That the right to veto can be dealt with by housing associations and the Housing Executive is a step forward.
There is a problem with unacceptable and antisocial behaviour. I would like confirmation that the Bill will help those families in housing estates who find themselves the targets of the nuisance behaviour of people who were transferred from other estates due to their antisocial behaviour. Such problems are experienced in north Down and in other areas. People are transferred to estates in north Down because their neighbours in Belfast would not accept their antisocial behaviour. I am not sure that the legislation provides solutions for such problems.
Apart from the situation in north and east Belfast, the daily problems faced by councillors and tenants show that antisocial behaviour and nuisance levels are unacceptable, and I welcome the solutions provided in the Bill. However, several measures must be clarified. Legislation in England and Wales stated that housing should be made available to eligible persons. I would like that criterion clarified to show whom the eligible persons are.
The Bill refers to immigration. Immigrants in Northern Ireland must be provided with good accommodation. As the Minister stated, it is wise to make one agency responsible for the needs of travellers. It is to be hoped that the Bill ensures that travellers are dealt with in a fair and clear manner, which will acknowledge that they have the right to live in safety and comfort.
Many Members referred to homelessness in the debate; only last week, we debated the definition of homelessness. As stated in paragraph 36 of the explanatory and financial memorandum
"the Housing Act 1996 (which applies in England and Wales) subsequently provided for persons to be treated as homeless if they had no accommodation available for their accommodation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. It is proposed to adopt the same definition for Northern Ireland. The policy objective is to ensure that applicants cannot be accepted as homeless by the Executive if they have accommodation available for their occupation outside Northern Ireland".
Do Members seriously believe that it would be easy to implement such measures in Northern Ireland? I do not. That provision must be reconsidered. The Minister is aware of Members’ feelings on homelessness, and I am sure that he is committed to improving the situation.
The regulations relating to unfit housing are welcome. In certain situations, people must be moved quickly, and the Housing Executive must allocate a house. However, I know a woman who is living in a Women’s Aid refuge because the house that the Housing Executive allocated is unfit. Safety measures must be considered, but allocated housing must be fit for occupation. The process takes a minimum of four weeks, and although Women’s Aid refuges are good, they are unacceptable if children are involved. Those are our principal feelings about the Bill.
Like other Members, I welcome the provision for housing association tenants to purchase their own houses. I also welcome other criteria contained in the Bill. Many issues must be reconsidered, but I will not go into those in any more detail. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development stated that that Committee will consider those concerns. I am sure that it will scrutinise the Bill thoroughly. The Alliance Party will certainly scrutinise it and make a submission to the Committee. I hope that my party’s deliberations and those of the Committee will be considered thoroughly so that the legislation is strengthened to make it more relevant to society.
It is important to reiterate that the legislation should proceed quickly so that ratepayers, travellers and homeless people will benefit. The Bill should uphold everyone’s right to a decent and comfortable home. It should improve access to such accommodation and make tenants confident that they can live in safety.
I may harbour the vain hope that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the housing associations will be able to use the legislation to help people who want to live together in an atmosphere of peace and tolerance to find accommodation in integrated housing estates. That will in turn militate against ignorance, intolerance and sectarianism.
I welcome the Bill as a serious first step, and I wish the Minister well in its passage through the House.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The Bill must consider the complexities of travellers’ accommodation, because any structural weaknesses will have a negative impact on the overall housing programme. I am concerned at the lack of consultation with local authorities during the preparation of the Bill. The Bill does not take a holistic approach to travellers’ accommodation; for example, there is no guidance on the management or control of illegal encampments, transit sites or traveller traders. Those issues must be addressed positively and proactively. If responsibility for control or management of transit sites, unauthorised encampments or traveller traders rests with another agency, there is no legislation to empower effective management of those situations. The result is a time lapse of up to three years to permit new legislation to be drafted, consulted upon and enacted.
The wording of the Bill is unclear on the Housing Executive’s role in the provision of sites for travellers. It is unclear whether that responsibility will be statutory or non-statutory. The references to traveller sites are outdated, because they are based on the Caravans Act (Northern Ireland) 1963. Identification of a traveller refers to the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, and again there is no reference to the problems of distinguishing traveller traders from nomadic traders. The issue of compatibility is also unclear.
The Bill deals effectively with many aspects of antisocial behaviour, which the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks and to which other Members have also referred. Local authorities would support action on antisocial behaviour, but there are concerns that those travellers who fall foul of the antisocial behaviour clauses and who find themselves outside the Housing Executive’s remit may resort to roadside existence again. That would have a negative effect because if no agency is responsible for the relocation of travellers, there will be no effective management control system.
A holistic approach to travellers’ accommodation is commendable and should be delivered by a single agency. That approach must include the provision of transit sites that deal with traveller traders and illegal and unauthorised encampments. That single agency should be the Housing Executive. It should be supported by legislation and powers of enforcement that promote effective management and control of those issues. Ring-fenced funding to provide specific accommodation for travellers is also necessary.
Specific management control mechanisms exist in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, where the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, which has far-ranging powers to deal with trespass and illegal encampments, has recently been introduced. In England and Wales, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has been reasonably effective, but two Bills are going through Parliament that address perceived weaknesses in the 1994 Act. Therefore, it is essential that the Assembly takes note of all the relevant information available before it makes a final judgement on the matter.
The Bill’s definition of disability is taken from the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, rather than that used in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I ask the Minister to consider that discrepant factor. In the interests of inclusion and targeting social need (TSN), the definition should be widened to include all disabled people.
The Housing Executive needs to examine its provisions for the allocation of public housing to help disabled people who are trapped in areas of civil unrest. Their position on waiting lists is often put back because higher priority is given to other unsettled families. It would be advisable for the Housing Executive to obtain the relevant information from other bodies in order to satisfy itself that an applicant has a disability. I wish to see an end to the imposition of the Housing Executive’s own criteria as the only means of allocating local authority housing to people with disabilities.
The Housing Executive is to be congratulated on its provisions to enable disabled people to live an independent life. It has earmarked additional money to address the situation, and it is important that those people have the choice of living independently in suitable housing.
What provision is there to allow a disabled person to be a member of the Housing Executive’s board? Will the Minister provide details of disabled people who have served on previous boards?
Families with disabled children that seek a disabled facilities grant have often struggled for a long time in homes that are neither accessible nor suitable for their child’s needs. Difficulties arise through the means-testing system, in which no account is taken of the real income and expenditure or of the additional cost of disability. Means-testing has a devastating effect; it penalises families whose income is just above benefit level. Means-testing for families with disabled children should be discontinued and grant aid made mandatory for anyone with a disability. The legislation does not adequately explain TSN provision.
Introductory tenancy may cause reduced security of tenure and directly impact on disabled people. Linked to that is the fact that 68% of evictions are for rent arrears or non-payment of rent. Many disabled people are dependent on benefits and therefore live on the poverty line. As a result, introductory tenancy could have a disproportionate impact on disabled tenants. The benefits trap also means that disabled tenants are denied access to the financial service that they need to buy their homes.
Many aspects of the Bill do not deal with the issues that impact negatively on travellers and the disabled. We need housing legislation that is tailored to the needs of our people.

Mr Jim Shannon: I welcome the Bill, and I thank the Minister and the Committee for Social Development for their work. Although the Bill is not perfect, we must recognise its many good points.
My Colleague, Maurice Morrow, and other Members have spoken about antisocial behaviour. I am concerned about the timescale for addressing antisocial issues. What is the timescale for dealing with such behaviour, from the time a complaint is made to the time that it is resolved? Will action be taken against those responsible following one complaint, or will a number of complaints have to be made before the process is initiated?
I am concerned that the process takes too long. The Bill must provide for an immediate response to the problem. We need provisions that have the teeth to deal with people’s needs and concerns quickly, rather than six months or more down the line. During the seventeen-and-a-half years that I have served as a councillor on Ards Borough Council, this issue has arisen time and again. People should not have to endure any longer than necessary the disruption of their lifestyles through despicable conduct and persistent antisocial behaviour. It is our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, look after the needy, and ensure that good tenants feel that the legislation caters for their needs. Will the Minister describe the timescale and explain how the process works?
With regard to succession on the death of a tenant, most of my concerns arise from constituency issues. I respond to those issues and bring them forward for consideration in the context of the Bill by the Committee and by the Minister.
Some cases involving the death of a tenant are very tragic. In many cases, the tenant who has passed away is a parent or relative of the person who will be succeeding them. Often, the death is very sudden; a tenant can pass away within six months of being diagnosed as terminally ill and they often need someone to look after them on an almost 24-hour basis during that time. The Bill provides for succession of tenancy when a person has resided with the tenant for 12 months ending with the tenant’s death. Can that be made flexible so that a person who has resided with a tenant for six months could succeed them?
I welcome the change to the legislation detailed in paragraph 9 of the explanatory and financial memorandum. It will clearly address the problems that many of us have experienced while looking after constituents. A social landlord will now be able to take action when a non-tenant causes nuisance to his tenants. In the past fortnight, I have heard from several constituents affected by such a situation. The problem falls into a grey area, and the change to the legislation will enable us to address it quickly.
Clause 17 deals with nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, and the proposed change will be helpful. The clause deals with those
"guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance".
How long it will take to deal with such people? It is important that we have a process to resolve such problems so that I can tell my constituents when issues will be sorted out. Will the Minister address that so that the problems that constituents bring to us can be dealt with quickly?
I congratulate the Minister and the Committee on their hard work. Let us focus on the positive points of the Bill and be flexible in operating the system for our constituents.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I have listened carefully to all points made by Members during this debate. The breadth of those comments illustrates the range of issues dealt with in the Bill. I have noted the comments about constraints on the Committee for Social Development, but our first priority as Members must be the needs of our constituents, rather than ourselves. I am conscious of the efforts that the Committee is making on this. While it is a lengthy Bill, many of the provisions are not contentious. They have been sought for a long time and will be widely welcomed. We should not judge the amount of work required by the size of the Bill — that would be naive. Sometimes the most contentious Bills, which take the greatest length of time on legislation and policy, are quite small.
I want to deal with issues that have arisen, though clearly I will not be able to deal with them all. If other issues arise, I will follow them up. There will be further opportunity in the remaining stages of the Bill to go into more detail, and I look forward to considering these matters further at a later date. I welcome the Assembly’s support for the Second Stage.
Several Members talked about how long it has taken to get to this stage, and I share those concerns. I put them to others outside my Department who were delaying this day. Mr Morrow, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who dealt with this matter previously as Minister, and other interested Members know that the timescale would have been shortened had issues that were not central to the Bill not been raised by others. That delayed it considerably. That is in the past now, and, as people are fond of saying, let us draw a line under it. However, we should not be critical of those who were pushing to have the Bill introduced much earlier. For instance, if OFMDFM had expedited the Bill, perhaps we would have dealt with this three months ago, and the Consideration Stage would almost be complete. That is a matter for others. I am keen to ensure speedy progress.
I am disappointed that more Members did not take part in the debate. I read the newspapers and comments from party Colleagues across the Province of Members who have spoken. By and large, the comments from all sections and all parties represented here have been welcoming. I will be extremely interested to hear how some of Mr ONeill’s comments on antisocial behaviour are received by his party Colleagues who have warmly supported the measures introduced in the Bill as long overdue and much needed. Sir John Gorman quite rightly referred to "neighbours from hell" and the difficulties they cause, and other Members made comments about certain housing estates, so I think Mr ONeill’s comments will come as a surprise, not least to some of his party Colleagues.
Some Members wondered if the Committee will have sufficient time to give proper consideration to the Bill. I know that the Committee has a fairly busy programme of legislation, never mind other issues. I also know that this will require much hard work.
I appreciate the efforts that the Committee will make to ensure that this Bill and the Housing Support Services Bill reach the statute book; indeed, it behoves us all to work hard to achieve that outcome. After all, that is what we are sent to the Assembly to do. There is no point in complaining about hard work; let us roll up our sleeves and do it.
The criticism has been made that the Bill is simply a catch-up with legislation in England and Wales, rather than a consequence of trying to find local solutions to local problems. While some provisions may reflect policies and legislation elsewhere, it is not fair to suggest that we are merely following suit for the sake of it. Naturally, developments elsewhere must be given consideration; it would be madness to ignore them. However, it is only if they are considered appropriate for Northern Ireland that my Department decides to adopt policies locally and to legislate if necessary.
It is clear from responses to policy proposals and consultation on the Bill’s provisions that, for example, there is broad support for a discretionary grants regime. There was little mention of that issue today. That surprised me, because many Members, particularly those from rural areas, have raised the issue of unfit housing. This instrument is critical to allowing the Housing Executive to deal with the problem. I am sure that it was widely welcomed, though it was not mentioned often. It is one of the Bill’s main issues. That is why I, and all those seeking such policies — to tackle antisocial behaviour and so on — would have been staggered at any notion that somehow the Bill might have been voted down.
There is broad support for the discretionary grants scheme, and the Housing Executive itself has observed that such a scheme will provide flexibility to develop local solutions to local problems. That is why we are introducing this change. The Bill will grant the Housing Executive’s request for that authority and power.
There is also broad support for the package of measures that seeks to deal with antisocial behaviour as it occurs in Northern Ireland; for the extension of tenants’ rights, as proposed by the Bill; and for a single authority to deal with travellers’ needs. I was impressed by the general welcome given in the 250 responses received during the consultation period after the Bill’s publication.
Sir John Gorman asked whether I would take account of the significant changes that are occurring in social housing across the United Kingdom. That is a relevant point. I can give a categorical "yes" to that. My Department and I will monitor closely any changes and will take those on board.
Homelessness is of great importance, and I welcome the fact that it has been given such attention in the Assembly and wider afield. It is a critical issue that does not only require legislation; it requires an accompanying strategy and funding. I am glad to say that we are making progress on both those fronts. Most of the Bill’s provisions are necessary so that Northern Ireland’s position on homelessness under asylum and immigration law is consistent with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
As Members well know, the Housing Executive has recently carried out a homelessness strategy and services review to help develop a more strategic approach to homelessness. In addition, the Committee for Social Development has just finalised its report into homelessness. The Department is also to take the lead in a cross-departmental, cross-sector review of homelessness, which will build on the Housing Executive’s strategic review and the Committee’s report. Legislation did not have to be passed to do that; that work is happening now. Some Members must remember and focus on that. These issues are being addressed and taken seriously. It is envisaged that all the necessary strategies, plans and programmes will evolve from these initiatives without the need for statute.
In the final analysis, my Department can invoke existing powers of direction on the Housing Executive to bring about any desired outcomes, without the need for specific provisions in the Bill. Members should study the powers that we already have, look at the fact that the Housing Executive is introducing a strategy and recognise that the Department is taking a lead in the cross-departmental initiative. They should also recognise that we have been successful in securing an extra £5 million for dealing with homelessness only this week. To get up and say that there should be more in this particular Bill is not the be-all and end-all of the matter; far from it.
As he frequently does, Sir John Gorman raised the issue of house sales and the impact on new building. I dealt with a similar question at Question Time on Monday. Mr Morrow stressed the value of tenants’ being able to purchase their own homes. The importance and value for those tenants and for society in general in Northern Ireland has been broadly welcomed.
We should consider whether social housing providers are hindered from meeting housing need by the policies on house sales and the new-build programme. New build and the number of re-lets are key factors. Those in housing distress are still being housed in a reasonable time, although we should always be trying to improve that situation. We could build more houses if we had unlimited funds.
Members have referred to tenants’ purchasing their own homes, saying that that takes those homes out of the stock for re-let. However, the people who purchase those homes would remain as tenants if they did not purchase their own homes. Those homes would not be on the market for re-let if they were not purchased: the vast majority of people who purchase their homes would have remained in those houses as social tenants.
Mr ONeill and other Members talked about the antisocial behaviour provisions in the legislation, especially in relation to introductory tenancies. The Council for the Homeless in Northern Ireland has lobbied on that, and I recognise that Mr ONeill’s arguments correspond with those of the council.
The provision for introductory tenancies was included at the request of the Housing Executive, and I am satisfied that there are circumstances in Northern Ireland in which the use of the facility to terminate an introductory tenancy without delay would be entirely justified. If it is justified in certain circumstances, it is right that, as a last resort, provision be made for people to be evicted from a home for serious antisocial behaviour, and it makes sense that we should have a provision that allows that to happen quickly when such behaviour comes to light. We would not have to go through a long, drawn-out process, and that was widely welcomed in correspondence and responses we had on the Bill. Some of the comments made today are very much at odds with the feedback that many of us hear all the time in our constituencies.
People want action to be taken against serious antisocial behaviour in housing estates, and we must respond to that. Sir John Gorman rightly mentioned that private Members’ legislation was being introduced in the House of Commons to deal with that sort of issue. We do no service to tenants and to our constituents by turning a blind eye, or saying that the problem cannot be tackled in the way that the Bill suggests.
I share Ms Lewsley’s concern about the termination of introductory tenancies for rent arrears, as happens in England. I intend to advise social landlords who choose to operate such a scheme that introductory tenancies should be terminated only in cases of serious antisocial behaviour. I hope that the Member is reassured that, unlike in England, introductory tenancies will not be terminated simply on the grounds of rent arrears. That is important and shows that we intend to deal with the serious problem of antisocial behaviour. We are not seeking to act in a punitive way, if there are other means at our disposal. The question of rent arrears must, of course, be dealt with as well, but we should reserve the proposed powers as a last resort against antisocial behaviour.
Mr Shannon referred to the time taken to deal with some of those issues. I do not want people to get the idea that there will be a raft of evictions, come what may. The powers outlined in the Bill are a measure of last resort. Where an order of possession is sought, there may be a risk of harm to individuals until the order is granted. It is important, therefore, that a court has the discretion to expedite the granting of an order in such cases. There is no evidence that that proposal would have an adverse impact on vulnerable people. Mr Shannon also asked about timescales with regard to several other issues, and I shall write to him on the details of those matters.
With regard to introductory tenancies, the fundamental point is that social landlords currently have to award secure tenancies without any knowledge as to whether the tenant is likely to prove suitable. If a person subsequently proves to be unsatisfactory, the landlord faces a lengthy process to gain possession of the dwelling. Introductory tenancies will allow social landlords to award new tenancies on a trial basis. If, during that time, a tenant proves unsatisfactory for the reasons I have given, repossession can be obtained quickly through the courts. Introductory tenancies are in no way detrimental to the rights of those who keep to their tenancy obligations. They will have the same rights as those with secure tenancies. I hope that I have dealt with that point and emphasised the need for it.
Mr ONeill asked whether specialist housing for the elderly or the disabled would be covered by the house sales schemes. He knows that the Housing Executive has undertaken a review of its house sales policy, which has been submitted to the Department. Mr ONeill and other Members will be aware of the details of that review. I accept that the right of tenants to buy must be balanced against the expectation of others to be able to rent such accommodation. It is proposed that registered housing associations should follow closely the Housing Executive scheme that is currently with the Department for consideration.
General comments referred to "an opportunity wasted". I said to Colleagues that I wondered how long it would be before that phrase was used in the debate — I have heard it many times before. As I said in my introductory speech, having been the Minister for Social Development for some time now, I recognise that there will be a need for further policy initiatives and, probably, legislation.
Members should not regard the Bill as the be-all and end-all of housing legislation or the only opportunity for such legislation. It is a major piece of legislation because it deals with important issues that affect social landlords, tenants, et cetera. Not everything can be done at once. If the Department had introduced some of the more radical measures that were suggested, and which cannot be introduced because it has not carried out the necessary consultation, complaints about the Committee’s workload would be stronger than they are now. However, I am determined to involve the Committee and Members in that process which will lead to further legislation. The Bill should not be viewed as a one-off or the only opportunity to deal with housing matters.
12.00
Ms Lewsley, Mr ONeill and others referred to the accommodation needs of travellers. The Housing Executive will have sole responsibility for meeting all travellers’ appropriate accommodation needs. There is already considerable pressure on housing budgets, and extra funding will be needed to enable the Housing Executive to meet its new responsibilities, so I hope that Members will remember that — particularly those who have spoken so eloquently about travellers’ needs — when a request for extra funding comes before the Assembly. The Department will need Members to vote in favour of the extra resources if the Housing Executive is to meet its obligations. The Housing Executive is carrying out a travellers’ needs accommodation survey. That will determine the need for various schemes, including group housing, service sites and transit sites, and play an important role in helping to identify and prioritise them.
In response to Ms Lewsley’s question, there will be a statutory duty on the Housing Executive to provide such sites as appear to it to be appropriate for the accommodation of travellers’ caravans. Unauthorised campsites is an important issue, and reference has been made to legislation on the subject in other jurisdictions, particularly the Irish Republic. The Department for Social Development, in conjunction with other relevant Departments, including the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of the Environment, is considering ways of dealing with unauthorised campsites, and I undertake to bring forward proposals on this.
There may be little difference between a transit site and a service site, since both are likely to have services and facilities. Transit provision could be made on a section of a service site where travellers could spend a few days before moving elsewhere. The Bill provides for the Housing Executive to provide such sites as appears to it to be appropriate to accommodate travellers’ caravans, and that will enable the Housing Executive to provide whatever type of site is required.
Mention was also made of the lack of consultation with local authorities. Local authorities and district councils across Northern Ireland were in contact with the Department for Social Development during the period of consultation on the Bill, and most of them are satisfied with it and with the Housing Executive’s taking on responsibility for meeting the social housing needs and other accommodation requirements of travellers. I am conscious of the time, but I want to deal with as many of the points that were raised as possible.
Ms Lewsley asked why the wider definition of disabled persons cited in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not being used. I will consider carefully her point. The thinking is that in deciding what facilities and help can be provided to a person with a disability, the Housing Executive works closely with, and is guided by, social services departments. Those departments operate according to the definition of disabled persons used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The Housing Executive follows suit; otherwise, social services departments would not consider to be disabled everyone that the executive refers to them. I hope that explains the rationale behind our position.
Sometimes issues appear straightforward at first glance. However, we want to make life easier for people with disabilities. We do not want to get into a situation in which some Departments recognise people as being disabled while others do not — that would lead to a worse situation. I will consider Ms Lewsley’s point, but I hope that she will understand the reason for our position.
Although there is no provision for the representation of disabled people on the board of the Housing Executive, the Bill requires me, as Minister, to ensure that, as far as practicable, the Housing Executive is representative of the community in Northern Ireland. Therefore there is no need to identify any component group within that definition, and we have not done so. However, people with disabilities are already included in the term "representative of the community." I think that I am right in saying that there has been — and may still be — someone on the board of the Housing Executive who has a disability. Mr McKee from Larne has served with distinction on the board. I hope that that reassures Ms Lewsley.
I thank Members for their contributions and, in spite of their reservations and concerns about detail, they have stated unanimously that they are content to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading. They have said that issues need to be examined in more detail — I am happy to do that. However, Members should recognise that the Bill is a major building block in housing legislation. We should examine it constructively and positively along with the announcements made earlier this week for securing extra funding to deal with homelessness, supported housing and fuel poverty. This has been a positive week for dealing with issues that affect the most vulnerable and needy people in society.
I thank Sir John Gorman for his warm remarks about my role. I also thank other Members who have spoken about the Department’s commitment to social housing. I am committed to ensuring that the needs of tenants and the most vulnerable people in society are met, but I need the help and support of Members. It cannot be done alone, and the Department for Social Development should not do it alone. It needs the help and co-operation of others. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Housing Bill (NIA 24/01) be agreed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Social Development.

Housing Support Services Bill: Second Stage

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Housing Support Services Bill (NIA 23/01) be agreed.
Supported housing is an effective and valuable service for many people in Northern Ireland. It helps them to live independently and often complements community care provision. Many people depend on it, the two most obvious examples being the elderly and those with learning difficulties. However, there are many others, such as victims of domestic violence, vulnerable young people, including those who are homeless, and those who suffer from alcohol or drug addiction.
Support comes in many different forms. It may be practical support, such as helping someone to set up and maintain a home or develop domestic and practical skills, or simply giving advice on financial management, such as paying bills or making benefit claims. Equally, it could be personal support, such as helping someone to develop social skills, giving emotional support and advice, or simply befriending someone who is lonely. It could be aimed at ensuring that vulnerable people feel safe in their homes by helping them to establish personal safety and security or providing community alarms.
A wide range of groups depend on housing support services and, equally, a wide variety of support services is available. Therefore, it is important to remember that not everyone has the same needs, so support must be tailored to meet individual requirements.
Needless to say, it costs a lot of money to provide support services, and a major source of income for the providers of the services is housing benefit. However, the courts have decided that, from 1 April 2003, housing support services will no longer be an eligible charge under housing benefit. Unless it is addressed, that situation will create a major reduction in the level of funding available to the providers of supported housing schemes. It could result in the closure of some schemes or, at least, force providers to reduce significantly the level of service available to vulnerable residents. For that reason, my Department is taking the lead in establishing a new fund that, primarily, will fill the void left by the removal of housing benefit as a source of income for housing support services.
Rather than deal with the issue in isolation, it was decided that we should adopt a holistic approach. The current funding arrangements are complex and fragmented, as funding comes not only from housing benefit, but a variety of other sources. In some cases, that has helped to create a situation where the type of service provided has been determined by the funding available and the source of the funding, rather than the need of the resident. Therefore, it was proposed that all sources of funding for housing support services should be combined in a single fund to be operated centrally by the Housing Executive.
Our proposals were developed by an interdepartmental working group, comprising representatives from the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, area health boards, and the Housing Executive. They have been endorsed by an external reference group that includes representatives of interested bodies, including voluntary organisations, which play an important role in delivering services at the coalface. The proposals have been subject to widespread consultation in the document ‘Towards Supporting People’ and have been broadly welcomed.
The new arrangements that the Bill will allow us to introduce will bring many advantages. They will allow the Department to impose conditions on those receiving financial assistance for providing housing support services. They will allow us to place greater emphasis on the quality of service provision, ensuring that those providing it are properly accredited, and thereby ensuring that vulnerable residents receive the level of service that best meets their specific needs.
The arrangements will eliminate fragmentation of funding, improve the quality and effectiveness of housing-related support services, and allow the Department to place the future of the supported housing sector on a more secure and co-ordinated basis. It is an important Bill that many people want to see enacted.

Mr Gerry Kelly: For the second time today, I acknowledge on behalf of the Committee for Social Development, the introduction of housing legislation. Once again I place on record that the Chairperson, Mr Fred Cobain, is unable to be present for today’s proceedings due to business elsewhere. He sends his apologies to the House.
The Housing Support Services Bill has just eight clauses. Therefore, it may appear insignificant compared to the Housing Bill debated earlier, which has 150 clauses. The Minister said that the size of a Bill does not matter, and I agree with him. However, any differences between us may take a long time to iron out, or be agreed upon. The Bill is a significant piece of legislation. Members should not, therefore, be deceived by its size. The intentions behind it are serious.
The Committee for Social Development sponsored a debate in the Assembly on 19 March 2002 to draw attention to the planned introduction of the Bill. It will have far-reaching consequences for those who rely on supported housing — the most vulnerable and needy in society. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the Committee is concerned about the financial effects of the Bill, and the fact that finances are no longer ring-fenced, as the Committee believes they should be. The Committee will consider that issue carefully when considering the Bill.
It is unfortunate that the Department chose not to publish the Bill for public consultation, though I readily acknowledge that proposals for the Bill were subject to consultation in May 2001 by virtue of the consultation document ‘Towards Supporting People’. However, the Committee finds itself in an invidious position. In my speech during the Second Stage of the Housing Bill I referred to the time pressures faced by the Committee in completing its scrutiny of legislation. I also said that the Assembly is obliged to be open and transparent in conducting business. However, I repeat my concern that in our determination to legislate, we may rush through law that we will later regret.
The Committee Stage is important. However, the Committee needs time to do its job properly. The Minister said that we have a duty to the people, and I agree. However, we also have a duty to bring in proper legislation for the next generation. Introducing legislation so late in the life of the Assembly will undoubtedly cause problems. However, on behalf of the Committee for Social Development I assure the House that it will take its role seriously. It is committed to exercising the powers delegated to it as regards the consideration of primary legislation. We look forward to the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: There is much to recommend in the Bill as regards efficiency and the service that it might provide. However, there are always concerns about how provisions will be administered and whether sufficient preparations have been made.
Given the diverse nature of the funding from different sectors that has made up the "pot", and the demands that might be made of that funding, I ask the Minister whether sufficient thought will be given to ensure that it will be big enough to provide for the potential growth of needs. During the recent debate on homelessness, it was generally recognised that there would be an increased need for additional support for people, from the social development and health and social services standpoints. Both Departments will have to contribute money to the funding pot. Will enough thought be given to planning ahead to ensure that there will be sufficient resources so that the pot is large enough? If the pot is not big enough to cope with such development, we will encounter problems. Once the pot runs out, so does the benefit support, and the scheme will be in serious trouble. We must be assured from the outset that the pot is large enough.
Charging for support services is an interesting side element. Charges currently exist in the system, especially in sheltered accommodation, where people can, and do, pay for services. What will happen under the Supporting People scheme is that, because we do not charge for domiciliary care, the pot may be short of the desired amount by around £2 million. That must be included when the size of the pot is determined.
Those are cautionary comments about how we decide what will be put in the pot at this stage. If we do not get it right now, all the efficient operational benefits that might come from this scheme could be in jeopardy. We must mark at an early stage how that will be done. There have been complaints about parity, as the Minister knows. The Bill could be an opportunity to reap some benefit. It is very much in the interests of our people to ensure that the pot is of maximum size.
I want to raise a couple of points on the administration of the scheme so that the Minister can amplify them more clearly. There is a need for detailed advice notes. There seems to be a big gap between the Bill and the Housing Executive’s current practical approach to the administration of the scheme.
Will the Minister ensure that, when the regulations are drawn up, there is sufficient detail to reflect what is already in place in the Housing Executive? That may seem a moot point but, because of transitional housing benefit and so on, much good work has been done in preparation for the scheme, and good practice should be supported. I want the Minister to give an undertaking that that will be the case. Drawing up those regulations should involve the external reference group to which the Minister referred.
Quality needs to be considered in the regulations and advice notes. I hope that that will be assured. If this were to come before the Committee, it would help to overcome some of the problems that the Deputy Chairperson mentioned — time elements and so on. If the Committee received the regulations early, it might placate some of its bigger concerns.

Dr Joe Hendron: I have watched the introduction of this Bill with interest. As Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I led the Committee Stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which addresses the needs of young vulnerable people leaving care and covers their need for adequate support and financial assistance, including housing support.
The Health Committee’s inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children highlighted many of the problems of those vulnerable and inexperienced young people, who must establish independent living early in their lives. I therefore welcome the Bill, especially if it improves the availability and ease of access to funding for housing support for that group of young people. I await with interest the Social Development Committee’s report on the Bill.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I, too, shall be brief. I thank Members who contributed to the debate. The Bill may be short, but it is important. I realise that Members have concerns about the details to be finalised before it becomes law, and I assure them that my Department, the Housing Executive and other interested bodies are dealing with that.
The Committee made the point that the Bill was not subject to consultation; however, it is recognised that it is closely based on ‘Towards Supporting People’, on which there was consultation. In this instance, consultation on the Bill’s provisions could have been perceived as overkill.
I accept that funding is a crucial issue which we must get right. For that reason the Housing Executive works closely with providers to ensure that they accurately assess their housing support costs, and my officials provide their counterparts in the Department of Finance and Personnel with the information necessary to facilitate their discussions with the Treasury.
The Housing Executive has been preparing providers for the implementation of the new arrangements. Seminars have been held, and funding is available to allow the voluntary sector to appoint new staff to work specifically to prepare the providers for the changes. The Housing Executive, as mentioned earlier, has established a large Supporting People team, which includes secondees from the voluntary sector, to work on such issues as supply- and needs-mapping.
Mr ONeill’s point concerned the amount of work to be done by the Housing Executive prior to the implementation of ‘Towards Supporting People’, and I am aware of that. Most of the work so far has been done with no additional resources, and I was pleased to secure this week an additional £1·6 million for the Housing Executive to ensure that it completes the project. I spoke to the chairman and the chief executive on this, and Members will not be surprised that they are very pleased.
The new arrangements enable the Housing Executive to work with the health boards, trusts and voluntary agencies to assess the need for specific schemes in Northern Ireland. A major exercise is already under way, the aim being to develop a comprehensive database which will set out the details of available schemes and services and where they are situated. That will ensure that there will be no gaps in the provision of service.
Mr ONeill raised the need to take growth into account when determining the size of the funding pot. As I said earlier, supported housing has a vital role. Each year, a certain percentage of the new build programme is reserved for schemes of that type, and it is important that that is taken into account when determining the future demands of the fund. I assure Mr ONeill that that will be so.
I welcome the support and interest of Members in this very important issue, which will be pursued vigorously. We have no choice but to act on foot of court decisions that made it impossible to continue with current funding arrangements. We decided to act rather than allow schemes to go to the wall, or not allow funding to go to the right people at the right time and in the right place. In acting, we have taken the opportunity to bring all the funding sources together to create a better service for the most vulnerable and needy in society.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Housing Support Services Bill (NIA 23/01) be agreed.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Social Development.

Point of Order: Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Ms Bairbre de Brún: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to clarify a point raised by Ms Patricia Lewsley during Question Time [AQO 1694/01] on Monday 1 July. Ms Lewsley named me in the course of a supplementary question to the Minister for Employment and Learning, Ms Hanna. Is it possible for me to do that at this point?

Ms Jane Morrice: Please make the point, Minister.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ms Lewsley was asking a supplementary question. Minister Hanna had explained that she would be meeting Martin McGuinness and me. Ms Lewsley told Members that, some weeks ago, she had asked me whether I would take that matter forward. She went on to say that the Minister for Employment and Learning is now taking it on. For the information of Ms Lewsley and other Members, the meeting was arranged through our respective private offices. There may have been a mistaken impression that the Minister of Education and I had not taken the matter forward, but I assure Ms Lewsley that that is wholly incorrect.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Minister’s point is on the record.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair).

Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill: Second Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Dhara Céim don Bhille um Chosaint Páistí agus Aosach Leochaileach.
Tá cuspóir an Bhille soiléir. Is é is aidhm dúinn páistí agus aosaigh leochaileacha a chosaint, agus déanfaimid sin trí na coimircí a neartú a ceapadh le daoine mí-oiriúnacha a chosc ó bheith ag obair leis na grúpaí leochaileacha seo. Tá na coimircí seo, faoin tSeirbhís Chomhairliúcháin Réamhfhostaíochta, nó SCR mar a ghairtear di fosta, ag feidhmiú le fiche bliain. Bhí SCR ina cheannródaí ar mhórán dóigheanna, ach is léir go bhfuil bearta i bhfad níos láidre de dhíth orainn a bhfuil cumhacht an dlí leo. Caithfimid a chinntiú go bhfuil daoine atá ag iarraidh oibriú le grúpaí leochaileacha faoi réir seiceálacha lena chinntiú nach baol iad dóibh sin atá faoina gcúram. Caithfimid ceanglais a chur ar eagraíochtaí seiceálacha a dhéanamh agus an Roinn a chur ar an eolas fúthu sin a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ina mbaol. Caithfimid a chinntiú fosta go bhfuil pionóis éifeachtacha ann dóibh sin ar baol iad.
I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill (NIA 22/01) be agreed.
The Bill’s purpose is clear. It is our intention to protect children and vulnerable adults by strengthening the safeguards that prevent unsuitable people working with those vulnerable groups. The existing safeguards, in the form of the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS), have been in operation for 20 years, and although PECS was ahead of its time in many ways, it is clear that we need more robust measures backed with the force of law.
We must ensure that those who seek to work with vulnerable groups are subject to checks to confirm that they do not pose a risk to those entrusted to their care. We must place requirements on organisations to carry out checks and to alert the Department to those people who may pose a risk. We must also ensure that there are effective penalties for their employment.
The protection of children and vulnerable adults is a duty of the highest importance. Issues relating to the protection of children are highly emotive. Like other Members, I am determined to do all that is possible to improve current arrangements. The Bill will make a significant contribution to that. However, it is not intended to provide solutions for all the problems faced by vulnerable groups, and the Department is considering other measures that will address some of the difficult issues associated with the protection of children.
The Bill is complex, and some of the issues are difficult. Although the subject matter is emotive, I urge Members to take a considered approach to the issues. We must ensure that our legislation not only addresses the real concerns of parents, relatives, carers and others involved with those vulnerable groups, but provides effective and practical safeguards. In that regard, the Bill strikes the right balance.
To explain the need for the changes that will be brought about by the Bill, I will say a few words about PECS. The service is operated by my Department, and it enables prospective employers to check the suitability of those applying to work with children or with adults with a learning disability. On the basis of information provided about those seeking to work with children or with adults with a learning disability, several checks are carried out, including checks against criminal records and the PECS register.
The PECS register is maintained by my Department. It is compiled from the names of people referred by voluntary and statutory organisations as posing a risk to children or to adults with a learning disability. To be referred, an individual must have been dismissed, transferred to other work or have resigned, in circumstances in which it is considered that he or she posed a risk. If an organisation requests that a check be carried out on a prospective employee, and the person’s name is on the PECS register, the organisation is advised to contact the body that made the referral. The decision to employ a listed individual is entirely a matter for organisations; there is currently no prohibition on employing a listed individual.
There are four basic weaknesses in the present arrangements. First, there are no duties placed on organisations to carry out checks; secondly, there are no requirements placed on organisations to make referrals; thirdly, it is not an offence to work with children or vulnerable adults while on the PECS register. Finally, people whose names are on the PECS register have no clear right of appeal against the Department’s decision to place them on the register. The Bill addresses all of those issues.
As the Bill contains 50 clauses, I shall simply outline the main provisions. Childcare organisations will be required to carry out checks on prospective employees seeking childcare positions. Those checks will be carried out against a new statutory list of those who are deemed unsuitable to work with children. Childcare organisations will also be required to make referrals to the list, which will be maintained by my Department. For a referral to be made, the individual concerned must have harmed, or placed a child at risk of harm, and have been dismissed, or have resigned or retired in circumstances in which he or she would have been dismissed. Other grounds for referral will include cases in which the individual has been transferred to a non-childcare position, or has been suspended pending a decision on dismissal or transfer.
I said that organisations are not prohibited from employing individuals who are on the PECS register. The Bill provides that it will be a criminal offence for an individual to apply for work in a childcare or other regulated position while on the new statutory list. It will also be an offence for a listed person to offer to work in such a position. Employers who knowingly offer work in a regulated position to a listed individual, or who fail to remove such a person from a regulated position, will also commit an offence. In broad terms, a regulated position will be one that involves work with children or the management of children’s services.
In addition, the Bill introduces disqualification orders, which will also prohibit an individual from working in a regulated position. Courts will be empowered to make disqualification orders in cases where an individual has been detained or convicted on indictment of certain offences and has received a specified sentence or term of detention.
The Bill also makes provision for the Department of Education to make Regulations that will prohibit an individual from working as a teacher, or in certain other education-related employment, if he or she is on the list maintained by my Department. The Department of Education will also be able to make Regulations prohibiting an individual from working in teaching or in other education-related employment in which the individual is considered to pose a risk to children. A person subject to such a prohibition under Regulations made by the Department of Education will also be prevented from working in a regulated position.
Although the primary purpose of the Bill is to afford greater protection to vulnerable groups, extensive provision is made to safeguard the rights of listed individuals. Before a person is placed on the new statutory list, he or she may make representations to the Department, and will have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.
The Bill has been the subject of extensive consultation. Two measures have been included in response to comments received.
First, provision is made for a member of staff or other person associated with an organisation to report any failure of that organisation to carry out a check or make a referral where it ought to have done so.
Secondly, provision is made for an accreditation scheme to allow organisations that do not fall within the definition of a "childcare organisation" to apply for voluntary accreditation. To achieve that, an organisation will be required to carry out checks, make referrals where appropriate, and have child protection policies in place. The Department intends that that accreditation, alongside better public information on child protection, will provide greater assurance for parents and other carers.
The Bill is also intended to pave the way for greater collaboration with England, Wales, Scotland and the South. Attempts to place restrictions on individuals who pose a risk to vulnerable groups will be undermined if those individuals can evade detection by moving to another jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Bill is designed to ensure that, for circumstances in which prohibition or disqualification from working with children has been imposed elsewhere, the Department will have the power to apply the prohibition or disqualification here. It is also intended that my Department will facilitate checks against the new statutory lists by organisations in England, Wales, Scotland and the South. In advance of the legislation, the Department will provide checks against the existing Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) register for organisations in the South and elsewhere, where that is necessary to protect children.
Everything that I have said so far essentially relates to work with children. With reference to vulnerable adults, many of the same principles will apply. For example, the Department will maintain a list of individuals who are considered to be unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, compiled from referrals from employers, employment agencies and certain other bodies. Where a provider of services to vulnerable adults proposes to offer an individual employment in a care position, the provider will be required to carry out checks against the list held by the Department. Providers will also be required —

Mr Mick Murphy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it proper for Members to conduct conversations while the Minister is speaking?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr Murphy. I was about to speak to MrRoger Hutchinson. Minister, please continue.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Providers will also be required to make referrals where an individual poses a risk to vulnerable adults and has been dismissed, or retired or resigned in circumstances where he or she would have been dismissed.
Additional grounds for referrals will include cases in which the individual has been transferred to another post, or has been suspended pending a decision on dismissal or transfer. It will be an offence for a person to work in a care position while listed. It will also be an offence to offer work in a care position to a person on the list, or to fail to remove a listed person from such a post. Provision is made for an individual to have a right of appeal against listing to an independent tribunal.
Although the provisions relating to work with children and vulnerable adults are similar in many ways, there are particular issues to be addressed in relation to vulnerable adults. For example, what positions should be subject to checks and referrals? Which adults are to be considered vulnerable, and thus afforded the protection of the new legislation?
The Bill terms positions that involve work with vulnerable adults as "care positions". In broad terms, those are positions that involve regular contact with adults in a residential care or nursing home, and positions that involve regular contact with adults to whom prescribed services are provided by a health services body or private hospital. Those who provide prescribed services in their own homes for persons who, due to illness, infirmity or disability, are unable to provide them for themselves are also included. People in receipt of such services are considered to be vulnerable. Those responsible for employing the individuals who provide such services will be required to carry out checks and to make referrals where the relevant criteria apply. Employment agencies, nursing agencies and employment businesses will also have a duty to make referrals under certain conditions where an individual has harmed, or placed at risk of harm, a vulnerable adult.
I have touched only on the Bill’s main provisions. The Bill is complex, and the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will pay particular attention to the details. I wish to leave time for Members to comment, and I am keen to hear their views at this stage. The Bill will significantly improve arrangements for the protection of children and vulnerable adults, and will form the basis of a very comprehensive and practical system of safeguards.

Dr Joe Hendron: The Committee warmly welcomes the introduction of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. The Bill coincides with the Committee’s inquiry into child protection services in Northern Ireland. The Committee notes that all 58 responses to the Department’s consultation process supported the proposals to strengthen the current arrangements. My Colleagues and I look forward to Committee Stage, when we shall scrutinise its provisions in detail and recommend amendments, if necessary.
The Barnardo’s case and the Fleming Fulton Special School case that were highlighted in the media recently have graphically demonstrated the danger of abuse that children face at the hands of those professionals entrusted with their care and protection. Therefore, it is vital that all reasonable steps be taken to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from the risk of harm and abuse.
The Committee accepts the need for a statutory list of those deemed unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults, and for the requirement for childcare organisations to carry out checks on prospective employees against that list. Further clarification will be sought at Committee Stage on the extent of the criteria for listing individuals, the application of the criteria equally across other jurisdictions and how the new requirements will be enforced.
The accreditation system for groups that work with children but do not fall within the legal definition of a childcare organisation is also important, as it is an indication that those groups follow the proper standards for the protection of children and vulnerable adults. The Committee will wish to consider whether that provision fully satisfies concerns that the requirement to carry out checks or to make referrals should be extended to all organisations that work with children or vulnerable adults.
The fact that there are two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, coupled with the ease with which workers can move between European Union countries, makes the provision for disqualification in other jurisdictions especially relevant to Northern Ireland. Close collaboration will be needed between North and South to minimise the potential for exploitation of the system by those who are intent on harming children and vulnerable adults. In the absence of a similar list in the Republic of Ireland, the Committee will want to know what steps can be taken to determine the suitability of individuals moving from there to take up employment in Northern Ireland.
To protect human rights, it is important that an independent tribunal be established to hear appeals against any decision by the Department to list a person as one who poses a risk to children or vulnerable adults. The Committee will want to consider carefully whether this right of appeal adequately protects the human rights of the individual.
As always, there will be questions on the financing of the new arrangements and how they will be managed. We will need effective cross-departmental co-operation for access to information and an information campaign to heighten awareness of the need to protect children and vulnerable adults. Guidance will also be needed on how organisations use information gleaned from checks.
This is a substantial Bill with 51 clauses and a schedule. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will want to consult widely and take evidence from organisations dedicated to the well-being of children and vulnerable adults. My Colleagues and I look forward to the Committee Stage of the Bill, when we will be able to consider its provisions in detail.

Rev Robert Coulter: I welcome this Bill. As a member of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety I take a close interest in the need to ensure that the statutory and voluntary arrangements for protecting children are as robust and comprehensive as possible. How we provide and care for children is a measure of how civilised we are. While children continue to be abused, we must examine how we protect them. Failure to do so indicts us all as a society, so I welcome the Bill.
Setting the pre-employment consultancy service, which is a voluntary arrangement to vet those working with children, on to a statutory basis is a positive move that will strengthen the safeguards for children. The Bill also seeks to tighten arrangements for checking the suitability of people working, or seeking to work, with vulnerable adults. I am pleased that the needs of this often-neglected group are being addressed. Children are automatically deemed vulnerable due to their young age, so it is important that older members of society, who are infirm or require care, are also protected. It is vital that the carers of vulnerable people, who may not have close relatives caring for them, should be vetted as children’s carers are. This is another sign of a caring society. The providers of care services, including private and public healthcare agencies, will now have to refer the names of harmful individuals for inclusion on a list of those deemed unsuitable for working with vulnerable adults. That is good.
The Bill is important and will help to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. However, those people affected by it should be able to appeal against inclusion on a list. This is not a perfect world, and people may be incorrectly listed. The Bill allows those who have been disqualified from work with children or vulnerable adults to seek to have that disqualification reviewed. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety referred to this when he spoke about protecting human rights. A fair society must give everyone the right of appeal, and this provision has been included. This measure will place a heavy burden on the social care tribunals, and the Committee will want to see how this works in practice.
I am pleased that definitive statements have been made on offences against children and on those who commit the offences. For instance, it is clearly set out that those who supply, or offer to supply, class A drugs to a child, or are concerned in the supplying of such a drug to a child, or are concerned in the making of an offer to supply such a drug to a child, will be included under this Bill. I am sure we all agree that those vultures who tear apart the lives of young people and feed on them for their personal gain will now be targeted in a very special way.
I look forward to considering the detail of the Bill at the Committee Stage.

Mrs Eileen Bell: This is another complex Bill, but the Health Committee will scrutinise it closely and propose relevant amendments. The Alliance Party supports the Bill’s broad principles, which will put the PECS register on a statutory basis. As the Minister said, it will strengthen existing arrangements and safeguards.
I hope that the Bill will go a long way toward preventing those who would be deemed a risk to children and vulnerable adults from coming into contact with them as part of their employment. The Bill alone will not do that, because clearly not all those who are a risk to children are on the register. According to children’s charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), there are currently only 22 people in Northern Ireland on that register. At least the Bill will make a start. Perhaps the fact that there are only 22 people on the current non-statutory register highlights the need for this piece of legislation. Charities and childcare organisations will work closely with the Minister to ensure that the legislation is implemented properly.
We welcome the system of disqualification on offences, but we also welcome the fact that the Bill provides for the right of appeal for those included on the register. That is important in protecting individual rights.
We also welcome the list of organisations required to carry out checks on prospective employees. We welcome the fact that those organisations will also be required to submit to the Department the name of anyone in their employment who they have reason to believe may be a danger, or whom they may have dismissed because of conduct that could raise doubts about their suitability to work with children. This is a practical attitude to a sensitive area.
However, I am concerned by the plan to create two separate lists — one for those unsuitable to work with children and one for those unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. I would like to see the mechanism for deciding which register someone should be placed on, or for deciding if someone should be placed on both. Will it be possible to allow someone who has been assessed as a potential risk to children to get a job that might put them into contact with vulnerable adults, or vice versa? How can we be sure that the safeguards are sufficient? I would like that clarified.
I mentioned the important right of appeal for those on the register. The Bill states that if someone is put on the register before becoming an adult, they will be on the list for five years and can then appeal. If that is unsuccessful, they can appeal again after a further five years. However, someone who is put on the list as an adult can appeal only after 10 years, and then must wait another 10 years if that is unsuccessful. That seems to be a disparity, and I would like that clarified. Perhaps the timescale after an unsuccessful appeal should be five years for both; the Committee might look at that when considering the Bill in detail.
In clauses 9 and 40, which deal with appeals against inclusion, there appear to be some more anomalies. Clause 9(3) reads "either of the following", when it probably should say "both of the following". There are also two other places where the Bill uses the term "or" when it probably should read "either … or". I hope that the Department or the Committee will tidy up those points, as they could affect human rights.
There is merit in the suggestion, supported by the NSPCC and others, that the list of organisations required to refer people to the Department for possible inclusion on the register should include all organisations working with children, including voluntary and uniformed organisations. The concept of the accreditation of organisations proposed in clause 16 will help the situation. We hope that that will lead to a more proactive approach and more confidence in child protection standards generally.
As a probation board member, I have seen many vulnerable children and adults, and recognise the necessity of strengthening the legislation in that regard. I have known several people whose lives and reputations have been severely undermined because of the absence of proper legislation.
They were tried and persecuted by fellow citizens who made their own judgements.
The Bill should require the North/South Ministerial Council to keep an eye on the processes for vetting and monitoring citizens from other EU states, where they may have been disqualified from working with children by equivalent vetting systems. The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Personal Safety has mentioned that point, so I am confident that it will be dealt with.
The Assembly has a duty to be seen to provide legislation that supports the vulnerable and unprotected in society. We have seen the trauma and anguish caused by drawing up lists of paedophiles and homosexuals, and I hope that that anguish will be mitigated by the Bill, which must be seen by all as balanced and transparent. Its implementation should be monitored constantly.
We welcome the introduction of the Bill if it is in tandem with education and training that will protect children and vulnerable adults. We look forward to considering the Bill at Committee Stage.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I commend the Minister and her officials for introducing this legislation. It will play a part in protecting children and vulnerable adults from unsuitable people who would abuse positions of trust.
People who criticise this Administration for simply enacting catch-up legislation should look at some of the innovative aspects of the Bill, which, while ensuring consistency with other jurisdictions, also deals with some of Northern Ireland’s particular needs.
The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill does not sit in isolation or in a vacuum. Last year, almost to the day, I sponsored a private Member’s motion on vetting arrangements and the need to take measures to promote the Department’s PECS arrangements.
I am pleased to note that the Department has made considerable progress on a range of issues to raise awareness of the need to carry out suitability checking and promote good employment practices. That will continue to run in tandem with the Bill. It will take on a new imperative and be as important as the legislation.
The Bill is part of a range of measures for protecting children, such as the regulation of the social care workforce and new assessment and management arrangements for sex offenders. However, other measures are urgently required, and the Minister will be aware of the need for her Department to develop a comprehensive child protection strategy that will interface and dovetail with the children’s strategy being developed by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That must entail much greater investment in the family of childcare services in the statutory and voluntary sectors. The Minister will be acutely aware that we are running at average investment levels of 40% below equivalent regions in other jurisdictions. Additionally, there are several policy developments, which, if implemented, could make a difference, and we need to move away from seeing measures in terms of cost.
The need to improve our record on child protection is one reason why I intend to introduce a private Member’s Bill in the next session. It will improve the functioning and status of area child protection committees. In addition to their many responsibilities, area child protection committees will also have an important role in implementing aspects of this Bill, such as reporting, regulation, and public awareness raising, through their key strategic child protection role in each of the boards.
The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill is one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of legislation to be introduced by the Executive. The Minister has outlined some of its key components, and I want to expand on several issues.
First, accreditation is a fundamentally important provision and highly significant in promoting and developing improved child protection standards in many uniform and sporting organisations. It will build on much of the good work of organisations such as the Volunteer Development Agency, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and others. A requirement to carry out suitability checking will be added, and those who have been dismissed for harming children will be reported.
Accreditation is a much more proactive concept, akin to the Kitemark, and it will be welcomed by both parents and carers. Accreditation will require considerable further investment, which will have several implications. I hope that the Minister will provide resources for her Department and, in particular, the childcare unit, to meet those new requirements. The resources made available by other Departments will be a key issue.
The protection of children is everyone’s responsibility. Accreditation will have costs for organisations that fall under the remit of the Department of Education, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I hope that other Departments will embrace the Bill’s requirements, and that the Executive will make funding a priority.
The Bill makes provision for accreditation and access to the Department’s list for payment of fees. I understand the Department’s need to charge for that service; however, fees may have implications for small voluntary organisations, especially those that have many volunteers. The Home Office and the Scottish Executive have waived fees for suitability checking for those types of organisations. I hope that the Minister will consider doing the same in this jurisdiction.
The Bill rightly places the issue of vetting in a wider European context. It has the capacity to recognise equivalent listings in other jurisdictions and provides for access to those from outside Northern Ireland. The position with regard to the Republic is that there is still fluid movement of personnel, yet there are radically different standards of vetting on both parts of the island.
The situation in the Republic is unsatisfactory. Although it has a criminal records office, there is no equivalent consultancy register of people who have been dismissed from their posts for harming children. Most of the time, for various reasons, individuals are not prosecuted. That disparity is of much concern to organisations such as the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) and the NSPCC, as well as Barnardo’s, both North and South. I hope that the Minister will ensure that that matter is placed on the North/South Ministerial Council’s agenda as a matter of urgency. Attempts to improve the system of suitable vetting are made more problematic by that state of affairs.
The decision in clause 2 to list an individual as unsuitable to work with children is a serious one, and must follow careful consideration under a due process. I welcome the inclusion, in clause 9, of an appeal to a social care tribunal, as that recognises the rights of those referred. However, the process outlined in clause 2 raises several issues. Protecting children is a multi-agency issue and often involves complex decisions. Listing those unsuitable to work with children and adults will also call for good assessment and clear decision making. I hope that the Minister will consider using experts inside and outside the Department to carry out that important task.
Clause 17 provides a clear mechanism for whistle-blowing by a person connected with a childcare organisation or any other accredited body. The process is dependent on individuals in childcare organisations reporting a failure to comply with the requirements of clause 2. The Minister may wish to consider situations in which that information is referred to the Department anonymously, or where individuals feel unwilling to reveal their identity. There may be situations in which an individual is unable to report information out of fear of reprisal. Therefore, there may be merit in altering slightly the wording of clause 2 to reflect those situations.
I welcome the provision made for vulnerable adults, who often suffer considerable social disadvantage. They rely on others to speak for them, because they are unable to speak for themselves. It is essential that they be afforded the same protection regardless of their age. However, the definition of vulnerable adults does not include adults who have suffered brain injury. Those people have had damage to their cognitive processes and should be regarded as vulnerable. Adults with physical disabilities must also be included in that category.
The SDLP welcomes the Bill. It is an important building block in the measures required to protect children. It contains some innovative thinking and is an improvement on the Protection of Children Act 1999. The idea of accreditation is far-reaching and could improve safeguards for children in organisations through encouraging the improvement of standards — something that any reputable organisation should be happy about.
The Bill is only one measure to protect children and must be seen in the context of a broader strategic approach by the Department. The disparity with other jurisdictions as regards child protection and registration rates is growing, as is chronic underinvestment. The implementation of the Bill will require investment in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety by other Departments and agencies. I support the Bill.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I support the Bill; it is long overdue. All Members who spoke in the debate are in favour of its provisions. It is natural for Members to press for stronger childcare regulations. It is good that the Bill also applies to vulnerable adults. I congratulate the Minister for introducing it, and I am sure that it will have the support of the Health Committee when its members consider it at Committee Stage. Even though I welcome the Bill, I am conscious of the need for us to ensure that it does in practice exactly what it was said it would do on paper.
I particularly welcome its provision for whistle-blowers. That is vital. People who work in organisations dealing with children and vulnerable adults must be protected if they become aware of potential abuse or unsuitable staff. They must be confident that they can bring information to the authorities without any danger of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.
I also welcome the right of appeal, through an independent tribunal, against inclusion on the register. Any organisation working with children and vulnerable adults that fails to carry out checks or make a referral to the protection register is guilty of a serious breach of its duty to protect these vulnerable people. The Assembly must therefore ensure that staff know that they can alert the authorities without fear of any consequences.
As the SDLP’s spokesperson on health, I welcome and support the overall aim of the Bill.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have listened to Members’ comments with interest, and I thank those who spoke. I am particularly grateful for their welcome of the Bill and their recognition that it contains innovative measures to meet local needs. I will attempt to respond to the points that were raised, but I will not deal with each in detail, because some Members said that they would be voicing their concerns during the Bill’s Committee Stage.
There is no doubt that we need continued collaboration with the South, and, as I said at the outset, this Bill is only part of a wider set of work. Child protection is being dealt with in the education sectoral format of the North/South Ministerial Council, which will be very interested in the progress of the Bill.
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been working on a comprehensive children’s strategy that will dovetail with the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Department’s children’s strategy would have been produced earlier had the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister not announced that it was to produce its strategy. Officials intend to make draft suggestions to children’s organisations and to seek their comments before bringing the matter to me when it has been further developed.
It was asked whether whistle-blowing should be done anonymously. An individual who avails of whistle-blowing arrangements may fear reprisals and may be reluctant to disclose his or her name. It is a difficult matter, as the Department must guard against spurious or malicious reports. However, the Department wishes to make it possible for individuals to report failures by organisations to carry out checks or to make referrals. The Department wishes to consider that further to see what might be done.
We must get the appeals process right. The Department will have to develop and operate detailed criteria for deciding whether a person should be included on the list, as will the tribunal when hearing appeals.
There will undoubtedly be difficult decisions on whether some individuals pose a risk sufficient to warrant listing. It would be counterproductive if the Department were to list people only to have its decisions routinely overturned by the tribunal. The Department will develop this as an important part of implementing the new legislation.
The use of the words "and" or "or" is a drafting matter. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will study the provisions of the Bill; that process will involve close scrutiny of its drafting. An individual may be placed on a list relating to children and also on one list relating to vulnerable adults. A person who is considered a risk to children will have to be regarded as a risk to vulnerable adults also. Detailed criteria will be developed to assess risk in all cases.
The imposition of fees dovetails with the question of whether there would be sufficient money for implementation. In some instances, it is not envisaged that there will be major resource implications as checks and referrals are part of an established system for children and for adults with learning disabilities. However, provision exists for the Department to prescribe fees to offset the additional costs.
Some are concerned about the imposition of charges. Including powers to prescribe fees recognises that an increase in demand for services may make it impossible for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to continue to provide them free of charge. By introducing costs, the Department would be able to bring about service quality improvements by greater use of technology. The Department has yet to decide the charges that are to be imposed on small voluntary organisations. Charges will not be imposed for checks on volunteers in England, Wales and Scotland, and I am sure that the Department wishes to take a similar position.
The difficult decision to list a person will rest with the Department. It is willing to see what can be done by drawing on outside expertise. The person to be listed will have the chance to make representations against the decision to list.
Members have welcomed the accreditation system. It is intended that it will go some way toward allaying concerns about the breadth of the requirement to carry out checks and make referrals. It is also intended that the promotion of the accreditation scheme among parents and carers will help to drive up standards and lead to greater protection of children. It has already been pointed out that the accreditation scheme is innovative.
The disqualification order is subject to certain conditions, including a requirement that a suitable period must have elapsed since its imposition. The intention behind that is to avoid repeated applications, and I understand that the Committee will want to look at the detail of that during the Committee Stage.
The Bill creates real opportunities to improve protection for some of the most vulnerable members of society. My Department will wish to work closely with the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on the detail of the provisions as the Bill progresses.
In case any Members feel that they have not had their questions answered during today’s debate, and are hoping for an answer before the Committee Stage of the Bill, my officials will study the Official Report, and I will respond in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill (NIA 22/01) be agreed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Health and Personal Social Services Bill (NIA 06/01): Further Consideration Stage

Mr Donovan McClelland: No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Railway Safety Bill: Final Stage

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That the Railway Safety Bill (NIA 3/01) do now pass.
The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 18 February 2002, and the Committee Stage commenced on 27 February. During the Committee Stage, evidence was taken from the main interested parties and my Department. The Committee’s approach has been thorough, and I am grateful to its members for their attention to the detail of the Bill. I thank the Committee for its support, as evidenced by its published report.
In my statement to the House on 10 June 2002 on the accident at Downhill on 4 June, I outlined how important the Bill is to the enhancement of railway safety in Northern Ireland. The crash at Potters Bar and the recent collision between a freight train and a lorry in Great Britain continue to emphasise the need for a focused legislative and operational approach to modern and safe travel by railway. The Bill, together with the secondary legislation that I outlined to the House during the Consideration Stage, seeks to achieve that. I reaffirm my intention to consult the departmental Committee and interested parties on those Regulations, and that process will commence in the next few weeks.
I thank Members for their attention to this important Bill during its progress through the House. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Railway Safety Bill (NIA 3/01) do now pass.

Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002-2012

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the strategic direction and underlying principles of the Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland, 2002-2012.
I am pleased to present the regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland, 2002-12, and to invite Members to approve its strategic direction and underlying principles. I hope that Members have received their copies of the strategy, which was made available on 27 June 2002. They will, of course, receive the properly printed, hardback shelf copy during the summer. I hope that it will bear the imprint, "Approved by the Assembly on 3 July 2002".
I want to thank the Members, local councillors and other key stakeholders who contributed to the development of the strategy through their participation in the consultative process — most recently, in response to the proposed strategy that I launched in the Chamber five months ago. In particular, the active engagement of the Committee for Regional Development during the past two years has been extremely welcome. I acknowledge the significant role that Committee members have played in helping to shape the final document. There are other key individuals to whom I want to record my appreciation. I intend to do that in my winding-up speech.
During the debate on the proposed regional transportation strategy in February, I was heartened by the broad indications of support for the direction that the draft strategy was taking. I was also struck by the high level of interest and the quality of the debate. Transportation is clearly an issue that affects everyone and impacts on all the Assembly’s priority policy areas. I will outline shortly the key differences between the earlier draft — with which Members are familiar — and the final strategy. I hope that it will be clear how I have responded to remarks that were made in the previous debate, and to the feedback to the consultation exercise that was launched that day.
Two years ago, the House acknowledged the poor state of Northern Ireland’s transportation assets and called unanimously for increased funding for public transport and roads. I am pleased to note that there has been progress since then, which includes a decision made by the Assembly in September 2000 to invest £103 million in improving the rail network following the report of the railways task force. Significantly, transportation is now a priority area for investment, alongside health, education, water and sewerage.
I want to acknowledge the contribution to transportation in the initial allocation of funds for the reinvestment and reform initiative. It will kick-start the strategy through highway improvements in key transport corridors, a reduction in the road maintenance backlog and a start to the bus replacement programme. It is a welcome investment, and I hope that it is a sign that the Assembly is determined to tackle the decades of neglect and underinvestment in the transportation network. However, I emphasise to the Minister of Finance and Personnel that I trust that it will be a harbinger of things to come.
In contrast to the preceding decades of underinvestment and the ad hoc approach of transportation planning this strategy provides the framework for the development of Northern Ireland’s transportation system in the next 10 years. The £3·5 billion strategy establishes strategic transportation priorities, identifies the measures that are required to meet its objectives, and considers the potential additional sources of funding that will be explored in the Department’s endeavours to develop the initiatives in the strategy.
There are several exciting initiatives in the regional transportation strategy that I will come to shortly. However, before doing so I want to draw Members’ attention to the strategic direction and underlying principles that they are being asked to endorse. The strategy identifies a requirement for additional investment in transportation in the next 10 years of £1·37 billion. That is, of course, £1·37 billion over and above what public transport and roads would receive if current levels of funding were to continue during that period.
In setting the total figure of £3·5 billion, I wanted to strike a balance between the level of resources that would be required to significantly modernise our transportation network and the budgetary pressures that arise from other priorities. The figure of £3·5 billion is not on a par with the level of investment in Great Britain or the Republic. However, if secured in full, it will enable the Department to tackle deficiencies in the current transportation system, make best use of existing assets, and begin to make several important enhancements to the infrastructure and services.
The level of additional investment required in the regional transportation strategy will support the ‘Shaping Our Future: Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025’ document, which the Assembly approved last September. Moreover, that additional investment will help us significantly towards achieving the regional development strategy’s 25-year transportation vision during the 10 years of the regional transportation strategy. The regional development strategy’s objective was to have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system that benefits society, the economy and the environment, and that actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life.
1.30pm
For many reasons, it would be entirely inappropriate to seek the Assembly’s approval for expenditure of that magnitude, which will stretch over the decade. I make it clear from the outset that the level of public expenditure for the strategy will be determined through the normal budgetary process. The strategy initiatives will be subject to economic appraisals, as well as the various statutory processes.
However, it is entirely sensible — indeed, it is essential — to secure endorsement of the strategic direction and underlying principles of the regional transportation strategy. That will create a clear and credible framework for the planning and delivery of our transportation systems throughout the decade.
The regional transportation strategy’s main features include providing a transport system in which walking, cycling and public transport will be more viable, attractive options on many trips. The focus is on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles. It focuses on making people more aware of the full cost and impact of their transport choices and on reducing the need to travel. It will start the strategic move away from a transport system that is dominated by car use towards a more balanced and integrated system.
A second feature of the strategic direction is a significant shift in the level of funding towards public transport to make it a more attractive travel option, especially in the Belfast metropolitan area, where there is a greater population density and, therefore, the greatest potential to make a noticeable difference in the numbers of people using bus and rail.
At the same time, the investment plan for public transport in rural areas will initiate new and flexible services. Those will not necessarily be traditional bus services. Rather, we shall work in partnership with local communities to respond to residents’ travel needs.
One outcome of the level of investment in public transport will be the upgrading of the existing rail network. The enhanced level of funding for public transport will also provide modern trains and increased railway capacity, improved bus services, and quality bus corridors on all main Belfast commuter routes. A rapid transit network in the Belfast metropolitan area will be introduced and new bus services provided in towns.
Tackling the road maintenance backlog would result in fewer roadworks, better quality roads, safer roads and improved journey times throughout Northern Ireland. The level of investment will remove about three quarters of the backlog, about two thirds of which will be on rural roads.
The focus on strategic highway improvements is aimed at removing bottlenecks, reducing journey times and improving reliability of travel, which benefits freight and buses as well as private car users. Investment in the strategic highway network will enhance economic development and accessibility to key services throughout Northern Ireland.
I do not propose to go through the details of all the strategy’s initiatives and schemes. However, Members will find it helpful if I draw their attention to the changes that have been made since February. Those changes are directly linked to the constructive feedback that I received in response to the consultation paper.
Consultees were asked for their views on the split of funding by area and mode, relative priorities, funding sources, targets and implementation proposals. One overarching message that I took from the feedback was that the proposed strategy did not take us far enough towards achievement of the regional development strategy transportation vision. Even the proposed additional funding was seen to be inadequate to give us a transportation system that we need to meet our economic, social and environmental objectives. I was impressed by the mature nature of the debate, which, by and large, did not seek to score one mode off against another. There was a call for increased investment, for example, in both roads and public transport.
Furthermore, people were strongly of the view that the proposals could be even more ambitious, particularly on public transport. In a nutshell, as Prof David Begg, chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, reminded me:
"The danger is not to aim too high and fail but to aim too low and succeed."
I set out to address the messages sent to me, including calls for improvements to the strategic road network, more visionary public transport and further measures to improve transport opportunities for people with disabilities. The changes represent an additional £76 million for the pilot rapid transit system; an additional £20 million for quality bus corridors in the Belfast metropolitan area; a further £12 million for bus-based park-and-ride; and £10 million for additional Goldline services on key transport corridors not served by rail.
The rapid transit system funding now includes an additional £24 million to increase railway capacity in the latter period of the strategy. That will depend on successful results from our earlier investments.
Proposals for investing in the railways were already in the proposed strategy, and Members will note that it has been necessary to include a further £74 million to fund them. That amount is due to inflationary cost increases in the rail industry, supply difficulties and ever-rising standards in railway safety.
I have also included a further £12 million investment in capital to allow services to continue on the Antrim to Knockmore line. We must, however, await the outcome of the spending review on that issue.
I have added a further £163 million for strategic highway improvements on the regional strategic transport network. Figure 5·5 of the strategy shows the illustrative schemes that could be delivered. I use the word "illustrative" because commitments cannot be given before the application of the proper statutory procedures and the securing of the necessary funding from the budgetary processes.
I have substantially increased the provision for the transport programme for people with disabilities to £12 million; £14 million is required to fund an extension of the concessionary fares scheme to include them. The detail of how that will apply will follow the review of the scheme, which is scheduled for October 2002. Moreover, I have given a commitment to prepare a transport strategy to examine the scope for a more co-ordinated approach to the planning and provision of transport services for older people and for those with disabilities. That will take place across the statutory, private and community sectors. Similar strategies elsewhere in the United Kingdom showed that such a study could make a tangible difference in the medium to long term for people who have difficulties in accessing transport services and facilities.
A further addition is the earmarking of £10 million over 10 years to establish a regional planning and transportation division, together with a technical data monitoring and modelling unit in my Department. That will ensure an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning. The new division will undertake research and initiate policy developments as well as monitor and review the implementation of the regional development strategy and the regional transportation strategy. The new technical unit will further the knowledge-base in transportation issues, and the opportunity will be taken to increase access to transportation planning and other relevant skills.
I intend to establish an external advisory body with representatives from the private, voluntary and community sectors to assist the Department in the effective implementation of the regional transportation strategy.
I take this opportunity to announce my plans to review the planning, delivery and governance of public transport. I want a new start for public transport in Northern Ireland. The regional transportation strategy can provide that. However, we must realise that the scale of investment for public transport envisaged in the regional transportation strategy is unlikely to be provided by public expenditure alone. We must attract private sector finance, management skills and innovation in delivering public transport. In September, I shall issue for consultation a broad outline of my proposals in a paper called ‘A New Start for Public Transport in Northern Ireland’.
One key element will be the establishment of an independent public transport regulatory body. Moreover, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and Translink will be developed into a new, dynamic, publicly owned operating company, to be known as Transport Northern Ireland. I am not advocating privatisation or unfettered deregulation, but a model that retains a publicly owned, public transport company that operates in a public transport market, which would be progressively opened up to private sector participation.
In advancing new partnerships with the private sector, I want to ensure that the proposed arrangements make sound commercial sense and are acceptable to the wider community. With prudent planning, we can accelerate the rate of investment in transportation by securing private sector expertise and finance.
Funding is difficult and complex. We know the amount that is required for our transportation vision. The strategy cites potential sources of additional funding, which, professional advice has shown, are not unreasonable to plan for. Alternative sources of funding are identified in chapter 6 of the strategy. The strategy may be regarded as ambitious, but it is achievable. It may be regarded as a major challenge, but I am convinced that the collective determination of the stakeholders is more than equal to that challenge. It may be regarded as a massive undertaking, but, given the enormous infrastructural deficit in Northern Ireland, no lesser strategy would deliver the out-turn that our people deserve.
I commend the strategy to the Assembly. It is a product of almost two years of work by my Department. It is based on extensive consultation in the community, rigorous analysis and a robust methodology. It was independently quality-controlled by the panel of experts, whose advice was invaluable to its development.
In contrast to the preceding decades of underinvestment and the ad hoc approach to transportation planning during direct rule, this is a strategic framework for the future planning, funding and delivery of transportation in Northern Ireland. As Northern Ireland continues to develop, the strategy has the potential to facilitate economic development; to promote accessibility; to overcome social exclusion; and to enhance the quality of life of all our citizens. The strategy remains faithful to the goal of balanced regional growth and development as set out in the regional development strategy.
To strike the right balance between public transport and roads, and between areas — east versus west and rural versus urban — will always be a challenge and give rise to competing perspectives. Members have their preferences for individual schemes and constituency priorities. However, it is important that we assess the strategy holistically or, as a former Secretary of State might have said, in the round. We must accord importance to the interdependencies in Northern Ireland, whereby accessibility to key regional and sub-regional health, educational, leisure and employment services is dependent on a strategic transportation network that serves the whole of Northern Ireland.
I invite the House to offer its view of the strategy, and I am eager to hear Members’ opinions. If Members support the strategic direction and underlying principles of the strategy, I assure the House that it will be my intention to treat it not as a dream or vision of what could be, but as a pragmatic business plan that delivers a modern, safe and sustainable transportation system for our region. I look to the House for support in reaching that goal.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Business Committee allocated two hours for the debate. I shall not put a time limit on the first round of Members who wish to speak. However, given the large number of Members who have an interest, I shall review the situation after the first round.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr A Maginness):
I thank the Minister for presenting the Assembly with a major transportation strategy that is properly ambitious, imaginative and rooted in a realisable financial context.
The strategy is challenging, but I agree with the Minister that it is always tempting to set low and easily attainable targets that do nothing for long-term radical development.
No one could suggest that the Minister for Regional Development and his Department have taken the easy route and developed a strategy that fails to challenge our hopes and expectations. The regional transportation strategy clearly sets out the steps that must be taken if the objective is a reliable and well-maintained transportation infrastructure supported by efficient and high-quality public transport.
There is no denying that some of the targets are ambitious, but that is positive and legitimate. If the Assembly wishes to make a positive impact on society, it must not shirk from the challenges that must be acted on to improve social and economic well-being. The regional transportation strategy is one such challenge. With commitment, belief and determination, the strategy can be delivered within the proposed timescale.
On behalf of the Committee for Regional Development, I would like to thank Dr Malcolm McKibbin and Ms Aileen Gault for their numerous and, for them, exhausting presentations and briefings. The Department has been co-operative throughout the lengthy consultation process, and although there were many contentious issues, those have been resolved to the Committee’s satisfaction.
The Committee welcomes and supports the broad thrust of the regional transportation strategy. It believes that if the necessary funding is made available, the strategy will ensure that Northern Ireland has a modern and viable transportation network that will serve to develop a modern and efficient economy.
There has been massive underinvestment in infrastructure over the past three decades. However, the Government have several other pressing priorities, especially the Health Service and the education system. Nevertheless, one cannot underestimate the potential benefits that the strategy can deliver to the economy.
The economy will benefit from less traffic congestion, which will make the transportation of goods and services quicker and cheaper, which will in turn make the local economy more competitive than it is now, both on this island and internationally. That is significant, given that 99% of freight is transported by road. An improved, efficient and attractive public transportation system will have a positive impact on the tourist industry. It will also make a significant contribution to improving social inclusion, which is a key priority for the Government. That is important because many people in rural and urban areas do not have access to private transportation, and 30% of families do not have access to a private car. The strategy will also bring net health benefits.
I have taken some time to outline the long-term benefits of the strategy, and I do not apologise for that. It is important that we remain focused on the long-term objectives. It will take time to deliver the results of many of the strategy’s proposals.
Rome was not built in a day, and the strategy for our transportation infrastructure cannot be expected to produce results overnight. We must remain focused and patient, but, most of all, we need to commit resources to the problems. The benefits of such expenditure will not be immediately recognised, as it takes time to undo the effects of some 30 years of underinvestment in our infrastructure.
I accept that it is not possible for expenditure of this magnitude, stretched over a 10-year period, to be approved by the Assembly today. Resources will have to be determined through the normal budgetary process. The estimated additional funding of £1·4 billion is a sizeable amount, but it is attainable.
Sadly, although this is a comparatively high level of investment in our transportation infrastructure, it is still lower than that in Britain and the Republic. I accept that the allocation of resources must be subject to the normal budgetary process. Nevertheless, that process is sometimes subject to short-termism. There is a tendency to respond to emergent pressures and to seek immediate solutions, often at the expense of long-term goals such as the transportation infrastructure. We can all be guilty of that.
If the regional transportation strategy is to avoid that fate, it is critical that transport infrastructure is one of the top priorities in the Programme for Government and that it will remain so for an indefinite period. The Executive have already acknowledged that, with investment in infrastructure listed as one of the top four Government priorities.
The reinvestment and reform initiative, with its focus on the infrastructure-funding deficit, is another major step to addressing our transport needs. I pay tribute to the former Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Mark Durkan, and his successor, Mr Séan Farren, for successfully negotiating that important initiative. The Executive’s position report states that
"The reinvestment and reform initiative provides a real opportunity for us to invest substantially in improving and modernising our infrastructure."
The reinvestment and reform initiative has provided a timely promise of future financial capacity to see realistically the implementation of the strategy. However, it was disappointing to note that in yesterday’s allocations from the reinvestment and reform initiative, transport and roads received only 16% of the total. Some comfort can be taken from the fact that the allocation of resources is over and above the £40 million earmarked for the trans-European network between Belfast, Larne and the border, south of Newry.
I now turn to some of the key elements of the strategy. The consultation document outlines the funding to be made available in the four areas over the next 10 years. There is a pressing need for major investment in our regional strategic transport network. This is critical to ensure that our key towns and cities are easily accessible, while allowing the efficient and timely transportation of people and freight. That is a major challenge given the extent of our road network. Northern Ireland has two and a half times more roads per head of population than England, although funding does not reflect our level of need.
Efforts are being made to improve the regional strategic transport network. A major step forward was the announcement on 24 September 2001 by the then acting First Minister, Sir Reg Empey, of an additional £40 million, which I have already mentioned, for the trans-European network route from Larne to Belfast and Newry to Dundalk.
However, it is important that the transport needs of other key parts of the region, such as the north-west, are not ignored. Derry is a key economic hub, with a catchment area that extends to Strabane, Limavady and Donegal. The area is also the main economic corridor between Derry and Dublin and Derry and Belfast.
The strategy recognises the importance of improving the regional strategic transport network, not just in the west of the region but across Northern Ireland. That is demonstrated in figure 5·5 on page 78 of the document, which illustrates the improvements that are being made and what could be achieved in the next 10 years if sufficient funding were made available and planning approval granted.
The breakdown of anticipated expenditure over the next 10 years shows a major increase in expenditure on public transportation, and we can take comfort from that. It will amount to an estimated 35% of the total expenditure. We have reached a consensus that public transport has a vital role to play in delivering a strategy. That is now conventional wisdom — although that was not the case 10 or more years ago. That is to be welcomed, as is the strategy’s emphasis on public transport. Many will carp that there is not enough emphasis on public transport in the strategy. They are wrong: the strategy strikes the right balance. Public transport has a key role to play.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am interested that the Member thinks that public transport funding is sufficient. Investment in public transport per capita is £73 in the Republic of Ireland, £47 in the rest of the United Kingdom, and £16 in Northern Ireland. Surely the Member cannot say that we are spending enough on public transport?

Mr Alban Maginness: The finances available to us for delivering services are much more limited than in those places. Therefore critical choices must be made between a purely roads-based transportation strategy and one based on public transport. We must make judgements according to our scarce resources. If we had more resources the disparity would be smaller, but in the circumstances the strategy is a significant contribution to reviving public transport in Northern Ireland. I welcome that, and the Committee supports the general direction of the strategy.
Investment in public transport will reduce congestion in urban centres, make the transportation of freight and goods quicker and cheaper and help to make Northern Ireland a more inclusive society. Thirty per cent of families do not have access to private cars. That is a particular problem for families in rural areas.
As a result, mobility is greatly restricted. This will help to create greater mobility and social inclusion. Increased public transport will make less well-off people more independent and mobile, enabling them to avail of local employment opportunities and public services. I note and welcome the inclusion of £31·5 million in the strategy for demand-responsive transport for more remote areas. I hope that this will provide a new beginning for the provision of quality transport in rural areas.
The Committee welcomes the commitment in the strategy to providing quality bus corridors on all the main Belfast commuter routes. There has already been some success on the corridors currently in operation, with a notable increase in patronage and shorter journey times into the city centre. The prospect of a rapid transit system in the Belfast metropolitan area is also exciting and I look forward to Belfast Area Rapid Transit "BART" becoming a reality.
During its visit to Europe to examine best practice in public transport, the Committee for Regional Development saw at first hand the benefits of an efficient, reliable, integrated and quality public transport network. Cities such as Karlsruhe in Germany epitomise what can be achieved, and Belfast can achieve similar results and standards. To do so we must remain committed and dedicated and allocate the resources necessary to make the vision of the regional transportation strategy a reality.
The Committee firmly believes that preserving and enhancing the railway network is an important element of providing an integrated, modern public transport system. There is no denying that our rail network is under pressure. Indeed, had the Assembly not allocated £103 million after the railway task force report, the network would have collapsed. When the Committee visited Derry and the north-west, it saw the poor state of our trains at first hand. We cannot expect to increase train patronage if the service is low quality and unreliable.
A recurring theme in the European cities that we visited is the high priority that is given to providing an aesthetically attractive and clean public transport system. We will not attract people back to public transport unless it is seen as a viable, efficient and reasonably priced alternative to the car. One has only to look at the success of the Belfast to Dublin Enterprise to see what is possible. The regional transportation strategy will bring a new beginning for our rail network, and the Minister is to be commended for his clear commitment to maintaining the existing network and seeking to increase patronage by over 60% over the next 10 years.
The Committee was grateful to the Minister for attending our meeting on 19 June to explain his intention to review the delivery and governance of public transport. We do not want to pre-empt the findings of any consultation, but we are broadly in favour of such a review. However, the Committee is concerned that services could be adversely affected, particularly if delivery is opened up to private-sector competition. One has only to look at the problems that arose with deregulation and the fragmentation of public transport in England and Wales. Even locally, concern has been expressed at private bus operators targeting the more profitable routes, which, in turn, has reduced Translink’s profits and is hindering its ability to subsidise the unprofitable routes, most of which are in rural areas. I am not ruling out private-sector involvement, but it is critical that whatever model is arrived at, safeguards are built in to ensure that the public service commitment is maintained.
The Committee for Regional Development is fully aware of numerous pressures facing the public purse and that infrastructure is but one of those many competing pressures. In recognition of that, it believes that every possible source of funding must be explored. Fundraising from any source is undoubtedly a thorny political issue, but it is one that we must accept.
The Committee’s experience in Europe highlighted some novel ways to raise finance. In France, employers with more than 10 employees pay a levy that is ringfenced for public transport. There is a scheme in Germany whereby employers can contribute to meeting the cost of employees’ public transport fares. In the Republic of Ireland, increasing use is being made of tolls to pay for new major road schemes. In Britain, there is a growing debate on congestion charging as a means of stemming the growth in car traffic. Traffic in Britain has grown by 80% over the last 20 years. The gridlock on the M25 around London, only 16 years after opening, is testimony to the fact that building more roads is not the answer to traffic congestion. I am not necessarily advocating such methods, but I am simply highlighting the range of initiatives that should be explored fully.
We all face many challenges. Nevertheless, our vision must be clear and sustained. Much of what is envisaged in the regional transportation strategy will require time and commitment. Many of the benefits will not be immediately tangible, so we will have to remain focused on the long-term goals. We are seeking to create a major cultural shift in attitudes to car usage and public transport. That, in itself, will require time. It places a burden on the Government and elected representatives at all levels in Northern Ireland to support and promote our vision. Understandably, people’s approaches will not change unless there is a visible commitment from Government, the Executive and the Assembly.
On behalf of the Committee for Regional Development, I welcome the public launch of the regional transportation strategy.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I indicated earlier that the Business Committee has allocated two hours for the debate. It is now becoming obvious that not all those who have indicated a desire to speak will be called.

Mr Maurice Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to make your task more difficult, but it seems ironic that some Members had unlimited time to speak, yet others who have a considerable interest in the subject are now told that they cannot say anything.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is a matter for the Business Committee, but it is useful that the Member raises it now. I do not want to take up any more time now, because time is pressing.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I congratulate the Minister on the production of this document, which is generally welcome. Regardless of what might be said about our bus and rail timetables, it is perhaps good that the Assembly is ahead of time in comparison with the indicative timings.
Another interesting point about the strategy is that it is a 10-year plan, and it refers to 2012. The Minister, who also happens to be the deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, has clearly accepted that the Assembly will still be in place in 2012. Perhaps the strategy is something of a backhanded compliment to devolution, and I hope that similar political realism and courage will be shown in all quarters when it comes to bearing the burden of the cost of this expensive strategy at more than £3 billion.
I broadly support the strategy, but I have four main reservations. The first is residents’ car parking. There seems to be some provision for improved off-street car parking in the plan, and £48 million has been allocated to that and related areas. I welcome the recently announced decriminalisation of parking offences. We have yet to see any move towards residents’ car parking schemes, and as far as I can determine the strategy is silent on that. In many parts of inner Belfast residents have been crying out for such provision for years.
The 1995 Department of the Environment document ‘The Way Forward’ hinted at that requirement so why, if you pardon the pun, has the issue been parked yet again? There would be social, environmental and health gains if the use of residents’ streets as open car parks for commuters during the day could be reduced. It might also reduce car theft, as police records show that the majority of such crime in the Belfast is committed in unattended, on-street car parking areas.
In the medium term, a residents’ car parking scheme might be broadly self-financing, through fines on motorists who infringe the scheme coupled with a reasonable permit charge on residents. That approach is used in some cities in England and elsewhere.
My second reservation relates to railways. Today’s regional transportation strategy has a target growth of 60% in passenger numbers; but the figure was 50% in the draft strategy document. Where do the figures come from? On the one hand, the methodology outlined in this document seems incredibly complex — there is the formidable acronym "GOMMMS"; guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies. On the other hand, the Northern Ireland target is suspiciously similar to that which has already been adopted for the next 10 years in Great Britain — 50%. Is there an independent reason for the target adopted here, or is it a read-across, albeit now slightly uplifted, to Northern Ireland?
My third reservation relates to walking and cycling. I welcome the funding of £40 million, but is that enough? It would be enough if targets in the strategy were realised: for example, cycle usage would quadruple over the next 15 years. However, even if that were achieved it would still leave us behind Dublin, some English cities and continental Europe.
There is the national cycle network, but a cycle lane along the River Lagan, while being scenic, may not be good for commuting or shopping trips. With only few exceptions, we are still not using some of our wider pavement areas on main arterial routes in the rest of the city to provide marked off-road cycle paths. All types of objections are raised to that, though it has already been done on some parts of the Knock dual carriageway. However, the practice is common in many parts of Western Europe, including the Netherlands and Germany. If it can be done there, why can it not happen here?
My fourth and final reservation concerns the financing aspect of the strategy. The document contains some financial details — for example, paragraph 6.2.2. If the Department wants the power to spend up to £3·5 billion it should fully spell out the revenue-raising methods that it will adopt. The Minister appears to be ruling out user charges in paragraph 21 of the executive summary.
One hundred million pounds is to be sought from developers; and we need to clarify the possible payback, because they will not provide capital for nothing. Will it involve more commuter villages in the countryside? The social and environmental implications must be weighed up.
Three hundred million pounds is to be sought from private finance. There will be charges associated with raising such private capital. Is the Minister willing to support the measures that the Executive would have to take to pay for such charges? He and his party, the DUP, cannot have it both ways — asking for all sorts of popular goodies and then refusing to accept the inevitable cost of paying for them.
I commend the strategy and support the motion, subject to those points of qualification.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I welcome the regional transportation strategy and congratulate the Minister and his Department on preparing it. In the strategy document’s opening transportation vision, the Minister’s aim is
"to have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life."
We can all agree with that and commend the Minister’s hard work and the way in which he consulted the Committee. We appreciate the input that we have been able to make. The strategy represents an important recognition of the central role of transport in Northern Ireland today and sets out a long-term vision for the Province.
Simply devising a strategy will not, in itself, achieve anything. However, if implemented, this document will make a significant difference to the lives of almost everyone in Northern Ireland. Within the constraints of what is reasonably deliverable, the regional transportation strategy sets a course that can and must be followed. The prize of success is great, but the penalty for failure is even greater.
In the limited time available, I shall touch on a couple of matters dealt with in the regional transportation strategy. I welcome the commencement of the rapid transit network for the Greater Belfast area. At a time when almost every other major city in the UK is developing rapid transit systems, it is important that we send out the message that Belfast is a modern, dynamic city. The start of a rapid transit network will send out just that message.
One of the most popular roads initiatives is the provision of traffic-calming measures, which not only make residential areas better places to live in, but, more importantly, enhance road safety. I welcome the additional £2 million that has been made available for traffic-calming measures over the period of the regional transportation strategy. I have no doubt that, if the money were available, many more requests for traffic-calming measures could be fulfilled.
The proposed demand-responsive transport service will act as a lifeline for many people living in remote rural areas, such as Islandmagee, Glenarm, Carnlough, County Tyrone, County Fermanagh, and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. [Interruption]. Where did I miss? I missed out County Londonderry, and anywhere else in Northern Ireland where there are many rural communities.
The Translink service will, however, still carry the most people on public transport in Northern Ireland. For those who live in rural areas, the age of the bus fleet is a significant problem. It is unpleasant to travel on a bus that is more than 20 years old; those buses will not attract people back to public transport. For those who have the choice of using a car, such a service is not an alternative. For those who do not have that choice, such a service is a punishment.
The importance of getting the mainstream public transport system right cannot be overstated. It is essential that the money be available to renew the bus fleet. However, it is also important that the service be run as effectively as possible. Translink must move from the era of the troubles, when it was a lifeline in difficult times, to an era in which it could compare favourably to any other service in the United Kingdom.
The Minister will also be familiar with the calls for more money to be spent on the maintenance of rural roads. It is clear that he has taken those calls on board. The regional transportation strategy proposes a huge increase in the amount to be spent on the Province’s roads in order to bring them up to standard. If the regional transportation strategy is delivered over the next 10 years the people of Northern Ireland will not only be on their way to having a transport system that they desire, but to the creation of the sort of society for which they wish.
The railway system is an important network in Northern Ireland, especially for those travelling to such places as Londonderry, Larne, Carrickfergus and Whitehead. I am delighted that mention has been made of upgrading the Larne, Carrickfergus and Whitehead stations. I am also pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Antrim to Knockmore line. Many people lambasted the Minister and called him some unpleasant names when there was debate about the closure of that line, but he has clearly stated his intention to get the money, if possible, to keep that line open. I congratulate him on that.
Some £20 million has been allocated for bus corridors, £12 million for park-and-ride facilities, £10 million for the Goldline, £74 million for railways and £12 million for the disabled. Those announcements are good for Northern Ireland and bode well for the future. However, everyone realises that those allocations can be met only if the money is available.
I must be careful about what I say, but I am slightly disappointed that the A2 — that terrible bottleneck that links Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey, Whiteabbey and Belfast — was not mentioned. However, perhaps something can be done in the future. Members realise that the Sandyknowes roundabout is in desperate need of improvement, and that has been mentioned. On the Belfast to Londonderry route, the Toomebridge and Dungiven bypasses have been mentioned. I congratulate the Minister and trust that the Assembly will back the initiative. I hope that the necessary moneys will be made available and that Northern Ireland’s transportation system can be brought up to the standard of the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise to the Minister for my absence during his opening statement. I was at a Committee meeting, and business has run ahead of the indicative timings. As I said in a debate on the regional development strategy, the timing of this debate is unfortunate. The regional transportation strategy is an essential instrument in the delivery of the regional development strategy. Therefore, a debate on a Monday morning would receive more attention and focus from Members and the public than it will now — the penultimate debate of the final sitting before recess. That is not intended as a criticism of the Minister or the Department for Regional Development.
The transport vision of the regional development strategy is
"to have a modern sustainable, safe transportation system which benefits society, the economy and the environment and which actively contributes to the social inclusion and everyone’s quality of life."
The regional development strategy’s objective is to achieve balanced development across the region. The strategy may be measured against those two objectives.
This region has not had a transport strategy before now. Various bodies were involved in different areas of transport, attempting to meet their short-term and longterm needs without overall co-ordination or consideration of the issues in the transportation vision. There was no consideration in the strategy of the economy, the environment, society, social inclusion and quality of life.
The ‘regional transportation strategy’ is a detailed document that attempts to set out a strategic vision for transport. I appreciate the work of the Department and the Minister for Regional Development in bringing us this far, and I congratulate them on doing so. However, I have reservations about the document.
The first concerns the national development plan in the South of Ireland. We live in a region with a border that is hundreds of kilometres long; it is our only land boundary with another place, therefore, one would have expected the national development plan of that part of Ireland to be particularly significant in developing a transportation strategy here. There is a reference to the national development plan on page 21, section 2.3.7 of the document. There is another reference to the plan on page108, section 7.5.4(v), but there is no detail of how the national development plan in the South has informed the development of the regional transportation strategy. There is a reference in the document to the arrangements for practical and ongoing co-operation on cross-border regional planning and transportation between the North and the South. In section 7.5.4(v) it states that:
"These arrangements have been to the mutual benefit of both jurisdictions."
What are the arrangements for co-operation on transportation? How much discussion has there been with counterparts in the South on developing the regional transportation strategy vis-à-vis the national development plan? Transportation is an area of co-operation identified in the Good Friday Agreement and in the Programme for Government.
Apart from the Belfast to Derry railway line and the Belfast to Dublin line, the map on page 79, figure5.6, shows no evidence of a plan to extend the rail network in the next 10 years. That is not surprising, because there was no vision over the next 25 years for extending the rail network in ‘Shaping our Future Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025’, which is a 25-year vision document. It is obvious, but still regrettable, that there is no vision. What is balanced development across the region? Is it about developing transport plans to meet predicted demands, or is it about shaping future demands? Is it about taking the initiative to determine future demands and transport needs?
The regional transportation strategy concentrates on the Belfast metropolitan area and the eastern seaboard corridor. There is also an argument about the balance of funding between roads and public transport. There is a backlog of infrastructure maintenance, and I hope that, having used that phrase, I will not be accused of spending too much time with officials. We cannot make a simple comparison between spending on roads and public transport without considering the money that is required to maintain roads in a safe condition. People compare the amount of money being spent on roads to the amount spent on public transport, but that is an unfair comparison.
There is a backlog of maintenance, which accounts for a significant amount of the spending on roads. Having said that, I am in favour of the balance, as spending on roads can improve public transport as well. As we have a limited rail network, the majority of public transport users have been, and will continue, travelling by bus. We hope to achieve the targets in the regional transportation strategy of increasing passenger numbers and miles, and money spent on roads can assist public transport in that regard. However, more and better roads can lead to more cars, more congestion, more pollution and a lack of sustainability in the strategy — that is a danger.
Significant spending on road improvements must be accompanied by traffic management measures, which are referred to in the strategy. However, that applies more in the context of raising revenue than in controlling and shaping transport demand and need. Traffic management must be complemented by the simultaneous provision of more available and acceptable public transport services if we are to have a sustainable transport system.
There are lessons to learn from Europe. Several cities there, which the Committee visited, were held up as having good transport systems, and they have several things in common. They have transport policies and strategies characterised by measures, not to curtail car use per se, but to curtail car use in urban areas, and thus, promote and facilitate public transport. Unpopular measures such as the reduced availability of car parking, increased car-parking charges and congestion charges are complemented by the provision of an attractive, competitive and viable transport system. However, if we are to have a sustainable transport system, substantial investment in road improvement must be accompanied by traffic management measures and an improvement in public transport services.
The regional transportation strategy may be the single most important document in its potential impact on health. Page 11 refers to the health impact assessment as one of the reports that informed the development of the strategy. The health impact assessment was carried out on the basis of the proposed strategy, which was published in February this year. How much has it informed the development of the regional transportation strategy? Consideration should have been given to the potential health impact at an earlier stage in the consultation on the strategy, rather than when the strategy had already been developed.
The health impact assessment lists some of the areas likely to be affected by the regional transportation strategy. For example, it has the potential to reduce air pollution and noise in urban areas. It attributes those potential benefits to bypasses that will divert traffic around towns, so that fewer vehicles will travel through urban areas. Serious consideration should be given to a quantitative comparison of that with potential air quality improvements that result from reduced car and greater public transport use.
There are obvious benefits in the strategy with increased facilities for cycling and walking, which have an immediate impact on the health of people who cycle and walk. However, the health impact assessment did not really address access to health services. There are references to improving access to general health and education services, but no specific focus on ambulance or car journey times to accident-and-emergency services and hospitals. That is very relevant in rural areas, such as my constituency of Newry and Armagh, and Fermanagh, Tyrone, south Derry, south Down and parts of Antrim — especially in the light of recent discussion about the location of future hospitals. The assessment should have placed greater emphasis on access to health services.
Finally, the strategy is based on enhanced funding, a significant proportion of which is likely to come from private sources: £300 million over the next 10 years. I repeat my comment from a previous debate on the strategy: acceptance of the strategy does not mean that the Assembly is writing a blank cheque for public-private partnerships (PPPs) or other private investors. Any PPP initiative on transport will have to be assessed on its merits and only when the Assembly has seen a detailed proposal of an initiative, including initial costs, short-term costs, long-terms costs and the short- and long-term impact on Government spending.
I support the motion, but with reservations. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I too apologise to the Minister for my absence during his introduction. Unfortunately, my car got through the city like a Translink timetable, while the Minister’s timetable was like that of the new trains on the Bleach Green line.
Members are asked to approve the broad thrust of the strategy. The motion is remarkably vague, which enables us to say that it is good in parts. It is certainly a great improvement on what went before — there was no strategy, and little was done to address the transport problems of the regions, so it is not much of a tribute to the Minister to say that this is an improvement.
I want to welcome several general points, such as the promotion of walking and cycling, which have never been properly recognised here. The work that the Minister has done and continues to do to upgrade the rail system and the announcement of an advisory body to recognise the needs of transport users are steps forward.
I welcome the allocation of £12 million for the Knockmore railway line, though there was a caveat at the end of it, which the Minister knows I will appreciate from a constituency point of view. Having criticised him in February on what might be regarded as a rapid transport network, but at that stage consisted of the Comber line only, I welcome its extension.
However, I still have concerns. My principal concern is the limited provision of funding for public as opposed to private transport — 35% in total. I noticed in a recent briefing paper that Friends of the Earth, which may have a radical reputation on such matters, thought that funding for public transport should be 65% — dangerous radicals. However, the GB 10-year transport plan drawn up by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that funding should be 59%, which is not far behind. Belfast City Council has suggested 50%. Clearly, there is still a difference between the Department’s plans for the overall balance in the region and what others with experience elsewhere are suggesting.
I acknowledge, and acknowledged even before I heard the Minister muttering, that there are issues in rural areas that make it difficult to manage public transport. There must be a different way of addressing those problems.
I will not list every rural district, though some people would probably wish me to. However, one issue is not being addressed. There are major transport problems in the Belfast commuter region, which appears to include places such as Ballymena and Downpatrick, and probably Dungannon. That is where public transport investment is desperately needed. I am concerned that, although there are significant improvements in the proposals, they do not go far enough.
The Minister will be happy to be reminded of problems in another jurisdiction. Dublin’s economic development way surpassed investment in public transport, with the result that the city is gridlocked. That problem will continue because there is only one decent commuter rail line, the Dublin Area Rapid Transport (DART). If we are to welcome a "BART", it must be more than just one line through the city, and probably more than the two lines that are being proposed.
There is a problem with the balance between the provision of public and private transport. There is also a problem with the split between the public and private sectors in providing finance. Too much investment for public transport seems to depend on money being raised in the private finance market. In the February proposals, £160 million of public transport investment expenditure was to come from the private sector, as opposed to £40 million on roads. That has now been balanced to approximately £150 million for each of them.
The public transport sector will receive only one third of the total expenditure, but that still means that the proportion of finance coming from the uncertain private finance market is twice as high. If private finance is not forthcoming, major holes will be bored through important sections of the strategy.
The figure of 35% has remained fairly static since the February proposals. That includes £100 million for the rapid transit network, although there is no information about where that funding will come from. I hope that the Minister, in his wind-up speech, will refer to that. If nothing happens because the funding is not forthcoming, it will be detrimental to Belfast transport and will lower the 35% figure for public transport investment. It will be even less than the February proposals, in spite of many groups lobbying on the need to increase that figure.
I have seen amounts described as "indicative" figures, but £100 million is about as indicative as one can get. I presume that it means a figure somewhere between £50 million and £150 million. That figure is too vague for such an important strategy.
The strategy has shifted the balance towards public transport. However, there are concerns about environmental matters, some of which are outlined in the strategy and include inner-city parking and inner-city pollution. Moreover, approximately 50% of Belfast households do not have access to a private car; the highest percentage in the region. Although the strategy may address short-term needs, it may become unsustainable with regard to the local environment and international obligations.
Many individual road schemes will be welcomed, and many are deemed necessary by local people. However, do those projects represent value for money? Yesterday, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister announced an investment of £5 million for widening the M1. I am not sure how many metres £5 million will buy, but I suspect that it is not very many, especially in a road-widening scheme. I wonder whether it will simply amount to spending a large sum of money to move the traffic jam from Stockman’s Lane to Broadway every morning. Would it not be more beneficial to invest an equivalent sum for the provision of public transport?
The rapid transit network in Belfast, the developments along the principal routes on railways, and the development of local bus services in several regional towns — which was not mentioned — will have much more significant cost benefits than will some of the potential proposals for roads that are included.
I shall become a little parochial, since everyone else has done so. The Minister referred, quite properly, to the potential investment in the Knockmore railway line. It is somewhat worrying that a document that purports to contain a strategy for the next 10 years fails to explore the issue of the Knockmore railway line in the context of the airport, and services there, or in the context of his Department’s own strategy, which sees significant population developments in Antrim, Lisburn and the commuter villages to the north and west of Belfast. I do not see how that can be addressed without regarding the Knockmore line as an integral part of the "circle line", as Translink has termed it.
Similarly, the proposals for work around Sandyknowes are necessary to some extent. However, we cannot solve the commuter problems from the north simply by tinkering with Sandyknowes and the M2 as it comes down the hill. An interchange at Ballymartin, for example, would get commuters out of their cars and onto a rapid transit system, travelling rather more quickly and comfortably into Belfast and with much less environmental damage. That is surely something to be considered, especially given the difficulties of establishing a station in Templepatrick village.
This strategy has begun to make considerable inroads into the non-strategy of direct rule, in which nearly 100% of funding went to roads, except for the minimal grants given to Translink to maintain services. However, I have my doubts as to whether it is enough. We have yet to ensure that there are appropriate levels of funding, and appropriate methods of raising funding, for all aspects of transport, especially public transport. We have yet to tackle the real issues — such as congestion charging, which must be faced soon — as we follow improvements in public transport with the measures necessary to ensure that Belfast gridlock does not loom ahead of us every two or three years.
I look forward to the publication of the Minister’s next strategy, which should, perhaps, be for 2007-17. We can then address some of those difficult issues and complete the start that has been made today.

Ms Jane Morrice: I read the new document following the consultation with great interest. I like the description of it as a "daughter document" of the regional development strategy. I had not heard that description before, and I like it. Unfortunately, that is where my compliments end.
When the last document was published, the most important point that I made was that the mission statement aimed
"To have a modern, sustainable, safe transportation system".
I ask that that be changed to make safety the priority. Change it to
"To have a safe, modern, sustainable transportation system".

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Minister for explaining that. However, it does not mean that he, as the Minister, cannot make safety a higher priority than previously. That is what I ask.
The reason for changing the mission statement would be to put safety first. It is not just about changing a title; it is about what we were told in the Public Accounts Committee, when officials from the Department for Regional Development complained about accidents on our roads, road deaths and the costs. The Department told us that road safety would be the first priority. For that reason I ask that safety be put first in the mission statement. I am sorry that that was not done.
However, I am not simply talking about a title. I am talking about the content of this document. I do not see road safety anywhere in the priority list. Let me turn to pages 28 and 29, which are no different to the equivalent pages in the February document. Fair enough: the pages describe the problems, and describe them very well. We have twice as many accident deaths on our roads as there are in England or Wales. The number of deaths per 100,000 of population is 10·1 in Northern Ireland; in Scotland, it is 6·4. The problems remain and they are well highlighted, but I cannot see anything in the document that states what we are planning to do about them.
The strategy contains a slight change from the proposal. We are told that the road safety strategy, which takes account of the responses to the consultation document, will
"reduce road traffic collisions and casualties. The Strategy is expected to be published by summer 2002".
I know that it is raining a lot, but I believe we are in the summer of 2002 — and I ain’t seen no road safety strategy emerge in this Assembly. That may be the result of buck passing; perhaps the strategy is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, but —

Mr Peter Robinson: Is the summer over?

Ms Jane Morrice: The summer is not over, but the Assembly will be in recess and I would have liked the opportunity to question the road safety aspect of the regional transportation strategy. Therefore, it is a pity that it was not published sooner.
We are being told that responsibility may be handed over to the Department of the Environment — but this is the regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland. The attitude is, "Road safety? Ach, we’ll wait and see what the Department of the Environment does — when it eventually comes forward with its strategy." Come on folks — what is the priority? This is about road safety and cutting down the number of deaths. We have 150 deaths on our roads each year, and it costs the economy £450 million a year.
We are all talking about where we will find the money for these things. I repeat what I said in February; 150 road deaths each year costs us £450 million a year. All we have to do is cut that number by 20% or by 50%; and if we prioritised that action, we could achieve it. The important question that I want to ask the Minister today is; where in the document are the targets for cutting deaths on our roads? What are those targets and when will they be achieved?

Mr Peter Robinson: It is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is buck-passing. Come on — we are talking about deaths on our roads.

Mr Alan McFarland: What percentage of road deaths is directly related to alcohol? It would be interesting to determine whether road deaths are due to the roads or whether they are due to a social problem. Surely the Member is not suggesting that alcohol be banned.

Ms Jane Morrice: During an Adjournment debate on the Bangor to Belfast dual carriageway, the Minister said that accidents are not the fault of roads; they are the fault of the drivers. I dispute that — they are the fault of both.
There is no question that excessive speed is involved; there is no question that drink is involved; there is no question that young men aged 17 to 25 are out joyriding — speeding — on our roads. There is no question that it is a social issue. However, there is a roads issue too. Why, for example, are there more deaths on the Bangor to Belfast road than there are on the road from Newtownards to Belfast? It is because the Belfast to Bangor road encourages speeding.
I accept that there are social problems, but there are problems with roads also. The people in charge of those roads must wake up to that reality before they find themselves in court.
If we wish to reduce road accidents, we must provide adequate funding to improve public transport. However, the need for more investment in public transport and less investment in our roads was not properly recognised in the funding split. Some 63% of funding is spent on our roads and 32% is spent on our public transport. — [Interruption].
I would love to be corrected if my figures are wrong, but I am sure that the Minister will have the opportunity to do so in his closing remarks.
Not only does the funding split encourage less use of cars, but in situations in which money is not guaranteed, public transport investment will be hit rather than roads investment. Mr Ford made that point accurately.

Mr Derek Hussey: Does the Member admit that in certain areas of Northern Ireland public transport depends on roads?

Ms Jane Morrice: There is no question about that. I accept the Member’s point, because the funding split is 63% to 32% in favour of funding for roads. There is no doubt that roads need to be improved so that buses can be driven on them, but the difference between here and the rest of the UK does not have to be so great. I gave Mr A Maginness the figures: we spend £16 a person on public transport, and the equivalent in the rest of the UK is £73 for each person. There are rural communities in England as well. There is no doubt that roads there need to be improved, but not to such an extent.
Mr Ford made the point that the Executive will look to the private sector to fund the public transport system, while the taxpayer continues to fund roads. That is the case despite the fact that 30% of households in Northern Ireland do not have a car — a figure that rises to 50% in Belfast. That the taxpayer pays for roads while the private sector pays for public transport is unacceptable.
I shall move on to —

Mr Peter Robinson: Did the Member not read the document?

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Minister want me to give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: I would love the Member to give way.
If the Member wishes to speak on a debate, it would be helpful if she were to read the document. She would not then come out with such inaccuracies or try to peddle something that is clearly not in the strategy.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Minister is very well aware that I read this document and its predecessor from beginning to end, and that is what annoys him. If he wants to look at the lines that I have underlined and against which I have written, "Wrong, wrong, wrong", I shall pass him my document later so that he can see. Furthermore, if I have given some incorrect figures, I would appreciate it if the Minister would correct those in his closing remarks.
In discussing accessible transport I shall praise the Omnibus Partnership’s work. That organisation operates a service in the Bangor and Groomsport area. I hope that the Minister is aware of that pilot project’s superb work. It has produced a list of recommendations about moving the service into the Ards area, and one such recommendation is that the strategy should:
"Introduce Easibus Services to Ulsterbus’ other depots, enabling Northern Ireland’s quarter of a million disabled people to reach public buildings and places of work, which should be accessible, by then."
That group’s target date is 2004, and I should like to see that mentioned in the regional transportation strategy.
I know that I have almost used my time, but I wish to talk about my vision. I do not know whether Members have a moment to close their eyes and think of what they would like. I would like to be able to get on the Bangor train, to buy the cappuccino that I have smelt from the smiling man with the trolley, to sit back with my ‘News Letter’, ‘The Irish News’ or whatever, and arrive in Belfast on time, well fed, well read and ready to go home on the same train. That is what people want. That is a wonderful vision. If it is good enough for the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Italians, it is good enough for the Northern Irish.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is unfortunate that I must limit each remaining contribution to five minutes.

Mr Joe Byrne: I am disappointed that we are allowed only five minutes. As the Member who began the whole process by tabling a motion on transport on 27 June 2000, I am somewhat aggrieved.

Rev William McCrea: Some of us are not getting a chance to speak.

Mr Joe Byrne: I accept that. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion and congratulate him on providing the House with an opportunity to debate the 10-year regional transportation strategy.
I welcome the overall objective to develop a modern, sustainable and safe transport system. A key priority is to increase investment in public transport, and that is desirable in that it will improve people’s quality of life perspective and the environment. It is good to do something about traffic congestion.
I place on record my appreciation and that of the Committee of the departmental officials, who administered an inclusive consultation exercise. The strategy is progressive and comprehensive, and I recognise the merits of GOMMMS (guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies).
There is not sufficient consideration to cross-border transport development in the document. It is not good enough just to have an eastern corridor such as the successful Belfast to Dublin railway line and the recently announced capital investment for the A1 from Newry to Dundalk. There is a great need for comprehensive cross-border transport development from Derry to Newry, and particularly for the western and southern parts of the region. It is not good enough to develop a transport strategy for Northern Ireland in isolation from the rest of the island.
Public transport is a key priority but, unfortunately, we have a limited rail network with the Derry to Belfast line, the Larne to Belfast line, the Belfast to Bangor line, and the Dublin to Belfast line. Beyond that, in Counties Fermanagh and Tyrone there are only roads. There is an emphasis on public transport and on increasing investment in buses, but we have a de facto speed limit of 45 miles an hour on our two trans-European network (TENS) roadways — the A4 and the A5. I welcome the proposed dual carriageway from the end of the M1 to the Ballygawley roundabout. I also welcome increased investment in bypasses, but in my area of west Tyrone and the west generally, the A4 and A5 are the only transport means. When it comes to implementing the strategy, I hope that we will see some front-end loading of capital investment for them.

Mr Derek Hussey: I apologise for interrupting Mr Byrne, as I know he is time-bound. The Minister knows what is coming, but does Mr Byrne agree that the aim should be to convert all key transport corridors into dual carriages? Section 8.5.6 of the strategy states that
"Further consideration will be given to arrangements for the timely development of a second RTS that would potentially cover the 10-year period post 2012."
Any preparation work on key transport corridors should be done with that aim in mind.

Mr Joe Byrne: I agree with Mr Hussey. A regional development strategy should look at a 25-year development plan, but this strategy looks only 10 years ahead, and a key objective should be to make all trans-European network roads — and there are only four in Northern Ireland — into dual carriageway.
I welcome the increased investment in rail transport and, in particular, for a demand-responsive transport system for Belfast, but a key consideration will be how to increase the number of rail customers.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the regional transportation strategy. I thank the Minister and, in particular, the departmental officials for their co-operation with the Committee during the design of the strategy. They listened to the Committee’s suggestions and reacted very quickly, and I am most impressed with their co-operation.
I do not wish to discuss all the points made today, but I would like to highlight some key issues. The strategy is a visionary document. It is a dream, and it has come under some criticism because it looks far into the future. That is important, however, because we need a clear idea of where we are going and what we are trying to achieve. For the first time, this strategy and the regional development strategy seek to provide that.
I particularly welcome the detail on the commuter system for the Belfast metropolitan area. My Colleague for North Down Ms Morrice mentioned the Belfast to Bangor line. It is good to see that the line will be completed shortly, if it is not already, and we welcome the new trains that will arrive next year. That will provide us with a state-of-the-art commuter system. At that stage, we can judge whether it will be possible to get people out of their cars and onto the railway system. There is a 25-year plan for the rapid transit system. Some of my Colleagues seem to have misunderstood that slightly. This is a longer-term plan than that for the Belfast commuter system and the railways.
In rural areas, it is important to free up the roads that Mr Byrne has been talking about — they are appalling. I spent last week in Tyrone, and even I was shocked, not having been there for a while. We must consider how freight is to be transported around these areas, and how ambulances and others are to get people to hospital along these roads.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Does Mr McFarland support the call of Members from my area for a bypass at Ballynahinch? That is a very important item on our list of infrastructure needs.

Mr Alan McFarland: Yes. Mr Byrne made the point already that the trans-European network routes — the fast routes — need to be made dual carriageways. I hope that the Minister heard those remarks.
The document mentions a local transportation plan, which is important. There is no point in providing free transport for the elderly, particularly in rural areas, if there is no transport for them to travel on.
What are the Minister’s thoughts on, for example, increasing rates or introducing road tolls to help to pay for the strategy?
The process that we have gone through with the railway task force, the regional development strategy and the regional transportation strategy will be seen as a model for the way in which strategy development should take place. Other Departments should look at how it was done.
This is a broad and visionary strategy. The Committee will wish to monitor it closely and have an input once the detailed plans begin to emerge.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I share Mr Byrne’s views about those who live in the west and the limiting of time at the end of the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is not a criticism of you. For those who live in the west, trainspotting takes on a completely new meaning. People need to live there to fully understand and appreciate that.
We would like to bring much to the Minister’s attention today, but time does not permit us to address everything. However, we will try to draw attention to some of the more prevalent issues that are very real for those of us who live in the west. The designation of the A29 road from Newry to Coleraine as a key transport corridor is vital. It has the potential to impact on the growth of places such as Armagh, Dungannon, Cookstown, and, of course, Magherafelt.

Rev William McCrea: I sincerely welcome the statement about the growth potential of Dungannon, Cookstown and Magherafelt as a result of the designation of the A29. However, surely for the growth to occur it is imperative that work on the Magherafelt bypass, the Cookstown eastern distributor and the realignment of the Carland Bridge commence early in the 10-year programme. That will complement the Minister’s excellent work in getting the Toomebridge bypass started.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thank the Member for that point; I could not have made it half so well. I see the significance of his point and accept it fully. I am sure that it will not go unnoticed by the Minister. The A29 Newry to Coleraine road, which opens up the west to the east, has the potential to do what Rev Dr McCrea said; it can also ease congestion in the Greater Belfast area. It can boost tourism in Fermanagh and in south Tyrone and in the areas that Rev Dr McCrea mentioned.
A recent survey showed that traffic on the A4, the Dungannon to Ballygawley roundabout road, had increased by two and a half times more than that on any other key transport corridor. Two bypasses are listed, but the A4 and A5 are not mentioned. I impress this on the Minister because it is vital. I accept that we need dual carriageways. In the past, the west was the poor relation as regards transport. We have never had a comprehensive strategy for transport, and I hope that the opportunity to incorporate it will not be missed. When the strategy is implemented I hope that the west gets its dues.
I listened attentively to Ms Morrice. I will not quote from the transportation vision again, but I know she says that safety comes first. I can easily live with that transportation vision. If this is a mission statement by the Department, then I feel it is right and proper. I encourage the Department to get on with it.
Finance must be made available for the A29 bypass at Dungannon urgently; it must be incorporated into the scheme. Dungannon is chock-a-block with through traffic; it is a trap. Traffic cannot get round Dungannon, and facilities must be put in place to ease congestion. Per capita, the use of cars is higher in rural areas in the west, because the east enjoys better roads, rail and accessibility. That is a relevant point.
I apologise to the Minister for not waiting for his reply — another Committee beckons.

Mr Peter Robinson: Every Member who had read the report gave it a broad endorsement, for which I am grateful. It seemed to me that all the quotations with which Ms Morrice sprinkled her speech came from the proposed regional transportation strategy, rather than the one that I am asking support for today.
I wish to record my personal appreciation to those who have been central in developing Northern Ireland’s first regional transportation strategy. First, Dr Malcolm McKibbin who so ably led the entire process since the early months of 2000. He and his colleagues in the regional transportation strategy division have been exemplary in assisting me to develop the strategy. They demonstrated the professionalism, skills and expertise that epitomise all that is best in the public sector. Their dedication, talent, energy and ideas have been pivotal to the success of the process. A special word of appreciation also goes to Mrs Aileen Gault, who replaced Dr McKibbin as acting director of the regional transportation strategy division earlier this year.
I also want to record my appreciation of the Department’s technical advisor, Dr Denvil Coombe, and the members of the independent panel of experts whose advice was invaluable in helping to develop and shape the strategy: Prof David Begg, Mr Stephen Kingon, Mr David Lock and Prof Austin Smyth. I also very much appreciate the contribution of Mrs Joan Whiteside, chairperson of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, who worked with the panel.
I want to respond to some specific points that were raised during the debate. If I had another eight hours instead of eight minutes, I might be able to cover them all. In the absence of time, I am sure that Members will accept a written response if I cannot cover the points they raised.
I thank the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Mr Alban Maginness, who indicated his support for the strategy’s underlying principles. I also thank him for the work that he and his Committee put into the earlier stages of the strategy’s formulation. I share his conviction that the plan is deliverable. It is ambitious, but we can achieve the goals that it has set. I welcome his call for transport infrastructure to remain one of the Government’s top priorities. I note his disappointment about yesterday’s allocation of reinvestment and reform initiative funding. Twenty-five per cent of that went to my Department, and we probably have approximately 40% of the infrastructure backlog, so we might have hoped for more. However, like Mr Maginness, I am somewhat content that the £40 million that was promised earlier for the trans-European network route still stands.
Mr Maginness was right to highlight the need for balance. Several Members referred to that. It may be worth pointing out the true figure, as identified on page 69, for Ms Morrice — 35% has been allocated to public transport. It may also be worth pointing out to Mr Ford that the strategy provides an average annual spend on public transport of almost four times the historical spending level. The strategy provides £123 million. The reference case was £60 million a year. Thirty-five per cent of the total funding is for public transport, as opposed to the existing spend of 16%, a figure that everyone remembers my quoting. The proposed strategy increased that to 32%, and the final strategy brings it up to 35%. Forty-six per cent of the additional funding is for public transport, as opposed to 51% for roads. I hope that Ms Morrice heard that while she was sucking her pen. That is a significant figure.
To those Members who are looking at the issue of balance, more than 50% of the funding for highways will be for maintenance. Clearly the strategy focuses its roads’ spending on initiatives that will restrain any increase in car dependency, and it seeks to improve the existing network. I remind Ms Morrice that the purpose of maintenance is to prevent accidents. "Safety first" are the watchwords. I would have thought that rather than degrade the money spent on roads under the strategy, Members would have welcomed it.
I do not expect to have rose petals strewn in my path by Ms Morrice, but I would have hoped that it would be recognised that we were taking account of issues raised in the past. If Ms Morrice looks at the document, she will see that it envisages a 2% reduction in accidents over the term of the strategy due to additional funding initiatives. That reduction would be a significant achievement, as it would come at a time when the number of vehicles on our roads will probably increase by 20%.
The references made by Mr Birnie show a lack of knowledge of the position of the Democratic Unionist Party. The strategy introduced today stands, whether the Assembly stands or falls. It is sufficiently robust to be able to cope even with direct rule Ministers. It would certainly be capable of living under the improved devolution that would come through the Democratic Unionist Party’s proposals — [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. The Minister has only a few moments left.

Mr Peter Robinson: There are dedicated officials determined to deliver on the strategy, and they will be there even if the failed and failing process signed up to by Mr Birnie lives or is improved.
He also raised the issues of decriminalisation and parking. That has come to the fore because the Police Service has said that it is not prepared to continue to police those issues. We must have primary legislation in place, and we will move forward with that quickly. It is not a matter that is parked: we are running with it and intend to deal with it as soon as we can.
Mr Roger Hutchinson will want to look at page 78 of his copy of the strategy, where he will see in the illustrative scheme that there is reference to the Shore Road and to Greenisland, so the A2 is mentioned. I welcome his support for the strategy. I liked his remark that the rapid transit scheme would send out the message that Belfast is a modern, dynamic city.
He also mentioned traffic-calming measures — and that is one of the most popular products I have.

Ms Jane Morrice: Hear, hear.

Mr Peter Robinson: That "Hear, hear" from the Member for North Down shows that she endorses the massive increase in the strategy in funding for traffic calming.
Mr McNamee asked about contacts with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland. We are ahead of the Republic of Ireland, as it has not completed its regional development strategy. However, I recall making an early decision to permit one of my officials to assist the Republic of Ireland in preparing its regional development strategy.
There is ongoing consultation and contact with the Department of Public Enterprise and the National Roads Authority. I met an official from the Irish Republic for lunch yesterday to discuss private sector funding and his experience of tolling. The chief executive of the Roads Service met the chief executive of the National Roads Authority last month. We are happy to give advice and be advised, and that can be used in the process.
Health issues were raised. The health impact assessment was a pilot scheme. We were happy to take it up and run with it. As far as the Department of Health is concerned, it was something of an experiment to see how the process ran, and I hope that it has been useful. That was not the first time that we starting looking at the health impact of the strategy. That is a feature of the guidance on the methodology for multi-modal studies that were carried out. The health impact was assessed from the beginning of the process.
You have been patient, Mr Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to go slightly over the time allotted. The regional transportation strategy provides a positive way forward and will allow Northern Ireland to have the advantages of the rest of the British Isles. It is true that more money goes into public transport and roads in the Republic of Ireland and on the British mainland than in Northern Ireland. We have a long way to catch up, and this is the beginning. The strategy represents a 64% increase in expenditure in the roads and transport budget. That is a good starting point, which I hope the House will support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly approves the strategic direction and underlying principles of the Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland, 2002-12.

Water Resource Strategy 2002-2030

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the Proposed Water Resource Strategy 2002-2030 Public Consultation Document.
I am pleased to bring the consultation paper on the proposed water resource strategy for 2002-30 to the Assembly. It is being issued today for public comment. The proposed strategy will provide an effective water management plan to improve the infrastructure so that it can meet increased growth in demand for high-quality drinking water up to 2030.
It is all too easy to take our water supply for granted, given the rainfall that we have in Northern Ireland. Almost half of our water comes from large impounding reservoirs in upland areas that must be replenished every year; the remainder comes from loughs and rivers. The below-average rainfall last autumn seriously depleted the Silent Valley reservoirs in the Mournes, threatening the water supply to County Down and Belfast.
Unlike the rest of the population, Water Service engineers have been happy with the prolonged rainfall of the past few months. This has filled the reservoirs, and I am now confident that there will be no supply difficulties this year. Members will be pleased to hear me say that, because many blamed me for having started the rainfall after my statement several months ago.
That threat to the security of our water supply emphasises the need to plan prudently to ensure that water will always be available to meet customers’ need. However, effective water management depends not simply on the amount of rain that falls, but also on where and when it does so. Although those factors are beyond our control, we can control how much water we impound in reservoirs in upland areas and how much we abstract from loughs and rivers.
Management of water requires long-term planning. The Water Service must take steps now to increase the supply of water to ensure that future generations will have enough clean water when they turn on the tap. Over the years, the Water Service has developed and implemented strategies designed to meet the ever-growing demand for household, agricultural and industrial water.
The regional development strategy has established the context within which all development will take place. It envisages considerable development. Ten thousand new homes were built last year; all require a water supply. At present, the demand for water stands at about 740 megalitres a day. The strategy estimates that demand will increase by 150 megalitres a day by 2030. That is an increase of just over 20%.
The proposals in the water resource strategy are innovative and far-reaching.
The strategy is built on existing foundations for a cost-effective water supply system that will deliver high-quality water to an increasing population up to and beyond 2030.
The strategy is simple and logical. It proposes a twin-track approach to reduce leakage and to rationalise and upgrade the supply system. It confirms the important role that Lough Neagh and upland reservoirs play in meeting water demands. The strategy also highlights the need for the rationalisation of many smaller sources. These are becoming increasingly uneconomic due to the need to meet current EU quality standards for drinking water.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair)
There is also a need to plan for uncertainties in supply due to future variations in rainfall patterns arising from climatic change. The strategy proposes that efforts and resources are concentrated on those sources that can meet our water needs most cost-effectively.
A further key strand of the strategy is to implement processes to improve the already high quality of water supplied to customers. This is to meet increasingly stringent European legislative requirements that must be implemented in the next three to five years. That is a priority issue in the strategy, and the costs of upgrading water treatment works have been incorporated into the proposals.
All of that comes at a price, and the Water Service faces a financial challenge to implement improvements in the designated timescales. However, doing nothing is not an option. The population will continue to grow and there will be an ever-increasing demand for high-quality water. The water resource strategy also recognises that water lost through leakage creates extra demand. Almost 25,000 kilometres of ageing water mains deliver water to customers in Northern Ireland. It is inevitable that a proportion of water carried through the system will be lost. Increased leakage measures can ensure that the volume of water lost through leakage can be reduced further. The strategy recommends that active leakage management will play a key role in meeting the increased demand for water.
The Water Service has been engaged in a major programme of proactive leakage controls since 1992. To further strengthen that programme, £25 million will be invested over the next four years to reduce leakage through the detection and repair of leaks and bursts. The aim is to reduce leakage to an economic level of 180 megalitres a day by 2006. Although water usage will reduce by 2006, the increase in population will require that additional water be made available in the future.
The additional demand for high-quality water can be met by increasing the supply available from specific sources. Lough Neagh, the largest single source of drinking water, supplies mainly the eastern part of Northern Ireland. It will continue to play a pivotal role in the water resource strategy. There are two key extraction points on the Lough — Dunore Point and Castor Bay. The Water Service also has the right to extract additional water from Lough Neagh at Hog Park Point.
The preferred programme of works was identified after an extensive examination of a wide variety of options, including that of continuing with the existing supply regime. Although the strategy must deliver value for money, the need for flexibility to move water between supply areas must be considered. The strategy must also be deliverable and acceptable to the public. The appraisal of the options included assessment of costs, value for money, rationalisation, environmental issues, climate change, land requirements, water abstraction, planning issues and flexibility of supply.
The water supply is sourced from 50 locations throughout Northern Ireland, ranging from reservoirs and rivers to small local sources including borewells. An economy of scale governs the production of water. It costs up to 10 times as much to supply each litre of water from some borewells as it does to produce the same volume from the major sources. It makes sense, therefore, to concentrate resources on those sources that can produce high volumes of water at a reasonable cost, thus providing flexibility and public acceptability.
The water resource strategy recommends that the number of sources be reduced to 31 locations, and in so doing it will give priority to the most cost-effective sources of water. The Department will then be able to maximise the output from the best sources of water and curtail usage from uneconomic ones.
By increasing the abstraction from Lough Neagh at Castor Bay and Dunore Point and undertaking extensive investment programmes at both existing water treatment works, the Water Service will be able to meet its commitment of improved quality and increased quantity. Therefore, this option will remove the need, based on current projections, to construct a new water treatment works at Hog Park Point. The strategy also proposes upgrading other major water treatment works including Fofanny bane, Ballinrees, Moyola and Derg. The rationalisation and development programme, together with new major transfer water mains, will supply quality and quantity.
The water resource strategy provides an effective water management plan, which will improve the infrastructure. It will also meet the increased growth in demand for high-quality water. The capital costs of the proposed improvements will be £260 million over the next 10 years. A significant proportion of that money is required to ensure water quality over the next four to five years. In order to comply with European drinking water quality regulations, the urgent upgrading of several major water treatment works is required. Careful consideration will have to be given to how the massive investment programme can be met, given other competing priorities including waste water treatment, improvements to water mains and upgrading of sewer networks.
The proposals contained in the strategy are based on a professional analysis of water needs and on an extensive consultation and research process with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and others. Water usage patterns were examined from a representative sample of more than 5,000 homes in 102 areas across Northern Ireland. The research was carried out over 18 months, and an analysis of the results has enabled the Water Service to formulate the options and to arrive at the preferred solution. The Water Service’s research meets demanding water industry standards. It uses forecasting methods that comply with the requirements of the Office of Water Services, which is the water industry regulator for England and Wales. As a result, the public can have full confidence in the conclusions and the relevance of the recommendations in the strategy.
The water resource strategy is not about finding short-term, cost-cutting solutions: it is about providing water treatment works and water mains to ensure enough high-quality water for this generation and for future generations. The Water Service has a responsibility to safeguard an adequate supply of high-quality water for the future. I have highlighted some of the key issues in the consultation paper. I trust that Members and the public will agree that this issue is of vital importance to everyone in Northern Ireland. I look forward to hearing the views of Members.

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank the departmental officials who attended the Committee to brief Members on the proposed water resource strategy. The strategy is of great importance, as it will have a major impact on how the Water Service delivers an essential service to the whole community over the next 30 years. I welcome the extensive examination of a wide variety of options undertaken by the Department. In arriving at the preferred option, I welcome the thorough appraisal of options, which have included assessment of costs, value for money, rationalisation, environmental issues, climate change, land requirements, water abstraction, planning and flexibility of supply.
It is also reassuring to note that the proposals in the strategy are based on professional analysis of water needs and on the extensive consultation and research process with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and others. I agree with the twin-track approach proposed in the strategy, which is to reduce leakage and to rationalise and upgrade the supply system. It is sensible to make additional water supplies available from the most cost-effective sources and to curtail the use of uneconomic sources of water. The strategy rightly states that efforts and resources should be concentrated on the sources that can meet our water needs most cost-effectively.
I wish to return to the issue of water leakage. The findings published in the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report ‘Water Service: Leakage Management and Water Efficiency’ have concerned us all. I accept that our ageing water infrastructure contributes to leakage. However, leakage of 250 million litres a day from the distribution system, which represents 37% of water treated, is totally unacceptable.
I am pleased that the water resource strategy gives priority to active leakage management, and I welcome that the Department will be investing £25 million over the next four years to reduce that through the detection and repair of leaks and bursts.
I also welcome yesterday’s announcement from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that, under the reinvestment and reform initiative, £5 million will be allocated for leakage reduction in the next two years. Given the level of leakage and additional funding being made available to address the problem, can the Minister clarify whether his Department’s calculation of water demand over the next 30 years has taken account of reductions in water leakage? If so, have specific targets been set?
On the financing of the strategy, the Minister has stated that the capital cost of the proposed improvements will be £260 million over the next 10 years. As the Minister has stated, a significant proportion of that amount is required to meet water quality issues over the next four or five years.
A critical issue for the Department is the need to comply with European drinking water quality regulations. The Minister has stated that several major water treatment works require urgent upgrading to comply with EU regulations. Therefore it is vital that an increased level of funding is made available to the Department to avoid costly infraction proceedings against the UK Government, which ultimately would lead to reductions in the Northern Ireland block grant to offset the cost of those.
On 28 June, the Minister announced plans to invest almost £100 million in the current financial year in upgrading the water and sewerage infrastructure. That included £21 million for drinking water treatment and £30 million for improving water distribution networks. That investment is to be welcomed.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister also announced yesterday that, under the reinvestment and reform initiative, £18 million will be allocated for water mains and sewers in the next two years. Although that funding is to be welcomed, it was disappointing to note that out of the budget of £270 million, the Water Service was allocated £23 million, which is only 8·5% of the total allocation. Underfunding will remain a major challenge for the Water Service.
It is to be welcomed, however, that the Minister is examining other means of addressing the deficits, with consideration being given to additional funding and the use of private finance. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline his policy proposals for new funding mechanisms.
Another issue of concern to the Regional Development Committee is that an estimated 829 properties in Northern Ireland are still not connected to the mains water supply. Can the Minister tell us how the water resource strategy will seek to reduce the number of homes without mains water supply, and whether targets have been set for that?
I welcome the public consultation paper on the proposed water strategy. The Regional Development Committee looks forward to examining the consultation document in detail over the next three months.

Mr Alan McFarland: I welcome the water resource strategy. The sad state of Northern Ireland’s water and sewerage systems is well known. It has been a regular topic of debate in the Chamber in the past three years.
Some Departments have flexibility. If they put off action for sixmonths or a year, it does not have a massive impact. However, there is now little leeway left in the provision of quality water if Northern Ireland is to meet EU standards. That has led to the development of this strategy.
I want to comment briefly on leakage. An issue that I found interesting when the Committee was briefed was the introduction of water metering on water rings in order to identify more clearly where the leaks are. The system was unavailable for a long time, so it was hard to tell where water was disappearing. If Water Service introduces a system of those meters, it will be possible to tie down more tightly where the bulk of water is disappearing.
I also support developers’ contributions towards the installation of water in new houses. Indeed, any new estate should have a system of water meters in order to identify the exact location of burst pipes from which water is leaking, so that they can be fixed quickly.
I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, MrMaginness, about funding. The Committee visited Welsh Water and was quite impressed with the concept of bonds as a means of securing extra money. I sense that extra funding for this particular project will not come from the reinvestment and reform initiative. The interesting thing about Welsh Water is that it has a revenue stream. Money is being produced, so it is able to borrow and use substantial private finance to deal with problems and issues quickly.
Will the Minister share his thoughts on the possibility of obtaining similar finance, with a revenue stream, so that the problems of Northern Ireland’s water and sewerage infrastructure can be sorted out sooner rather than later?

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will not repeat what the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee have said.
The Committee has spoken to and questioned the Minister’s officials. However, a couple of issues have arisen since the Committee considered the document. The first relates to the computer simulation model that was used as the basis on which to predict water demand and to model the management of water production. The water resource strategy states that the model is based on a water resource management package. It says that the information that is fed into that package should be gathered over a long period. It recognises that few records of flow, and none of reservoir inflow, from before 1970 are available. That will limit the robustness of the model’s predictions of rainfall and demand.
I say that in the context of the short-term climatic abnormalities that Northern Ireland has experienced and which the Minister referred to earlier. In the past three months, Northern Ireland has had the heaviest rainfall since 1960. Last September, October, November and December had the lowest rainfall for that four-month period for many years, which raised concerns about reservoir levels over Christmas and the newyear. Given the significantly high levels of rainfall in the past three months, is the Minister confident that the computer simulation model, which is based on limited records, will be robust enough to deal with potential short-term climatic changes — or, indeed, the long-term climatic changes that scientists advise us of? If not, does the strategy have any contingency plans to deal with climatic abnormalities?
My second point relates to sources of water. Page 4 of the water resource strategy states that only 6% of our water is sourced from rivers. Given the abundance of rivers in this part of the land, is such a small amount of water extracted from our rivers because it is more costly and less economically viable than other sources, or is it because of the poor quality of the water in our rivers due to pollution?
My third question relates to increased extraction from loughs. Lough Neagh has been mentioned in that respect. I am also concerned about increased extraction from Camlough Lake, which is in my constituency. Has the Minister any concerns about the environmental impact of, or the loss of amenity of leisure facilities due to increased extraction from loughs?
I do not intend to put the Minister on the spot with my final point. The future funding of water infrastructure spending has been highlighted in the water resource strategy. Does he intend to consider or propose the separation of water costs? Since devolution, rates have gone into the general block budget. Prior to that, rates were associated with the provision of services, including water. I am not trying to catch the Minister out, but will he consider or propose water charges based on consumption, either estimated or metered, and the cost of delivering water to consumers? Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the Members who have taken part in the debate and will try to respond to their points. I will respond in writing to those that are not covered.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development asked whether the calculation of water demand over the next 30 years had taken account of reductions in water due to leakage. I confirm that the calculation is predicated on the basis of the targets to reduce leakage, as set out in the strategy, being met. The aim is to reduce leakage to an economic level of 180 megalitres by 2006.
He also rightly drew attention to the importance of funding, a point that the Deputy Chairperson, Mr McFarland, also raised. I put on record my condolences to the Deputy Chairperson on the recent loss of his father. Those of us who have walked that path will know just what measure of anguish that can cause in a household. I was in Derg on the day of the funeral; otherwise I would have been present.
On the issue of funding, I said that there would be a requirement for an additional £260 million over the next 10 years. That is a fairly significant amount of money.
Let me take those issues together with the point about charging. I was somewhat disturbed, mainly by the reaction of the press, when the reinvestment and reform initiative was announced. Figures were bandied about which, if anything, frightened the public. They were inaccurate, but they were sucked into the ether and taken as the truth. In fact, over a 10-year period there can be stepped increases. Not all the increases required for infrastructure must come from the reinvestment and reform initiative and so require an additional stream of funding. Over recent weeks my officials carried out exercises in the Roads Service and the Water Service to identify how to deal with required additional funding. Members heard about that in the context of roads and transport during the earlier debate on the transportation strategy: only £0·4 billion of the £1·4 billion required by the Department for additional funding will come from the reinvestment and reform initiative.
Members will also note that the most significant portion of funding for the water resource strategy over the 10-year period will come from bundling several schemes together for a public-private partnership or a private finance initiative or from developer contributions. That point was made by the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee. I am not making announcements on that today, but I assure him that the matter is being examined in detail at a reasonably advanced stage.
The argument that additional costs for water services as a result of new development should be applied to that new development is almost universally accepted. That is what happens with roads, and under article 40 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, it even happens in education, when paying for schools. The principle is accepted in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, so steps can be taken to reduce significantly any need for reinvestment and reform initiative funding.
The Committee has always respected the confidences of the Department for Regional Development. I shall allow Members to enjoy the summer recess; however, on our return in September, I should be happy, and it might be useful, to share with the Committee our private calculations of how the funding identified in the transportation strategy and that required for the water resource strategy would be spread over 10 years. Members will see that the scare stories being told to the community about the payments required to meet the bill are not realistic at all. Over a 10-year period the public will find that there is no undue burden, and I make the political point that any burden at all could be swept away, or at least significantly reduced, if we examined places where savings could be made. There are many such places in our current Budget.
I took the long route when dealing with funding issues. The question specifically concerned water charges, and I touched on that at Question Time some months ago. It was a mistake to break the link with the regional rate and the Water Service bill. It was in people’s minds that they paid for water provision through their rates. Unfortunately, that link was broken.
I have no difficulty with the suggestion to itemise the regional rate to allow people to identify what portion of it covers their water charges. There is a notion that the water supply is free. It is not; people must pay for it. We should identify how much people pay. If there are additional costs, I wish to show how they can be met, either through public-private partnerships, developer contributions or the reinvestment and reform initiative. Many people do not accept the degree of sophistication with which the public can understand such issues. If the public are provided with the relevant information, there will be greater understanding of the issues involved and the needs that exist in Government.
The present level of leakage, which is approximately 40%, is unacceptable. The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development, Mr McFarland, was right to state that much money was spent in the past four years on various exercises to identify areas in which leakage occurs in the system. Many commentators have said that, although the Department intends to spend £25 million on leakage reduction in the next four years, the £21 million that has been spent in the past four years did not make much of a difference. However, we had to install the infrastructure that would allow us to identify the sources of the leaks. We expect to realise many of the benefits in the next four years. I have set the target — and it is dangerous when Ministers set targets — that by 2006 we shall have reached the economic level of leakage, which is the point at which it is cheaper to produce more water than it is to spend money to deal with leaks and burst pipes.
Members referred to the cost-effectiveness of rivers and boreholes, as opposed to extraction from the lough. It can cost up to 10 times more to extract water from those sources than from our major sources of water. Therefore, it makes financial sense for us to extract water from the major sources and to decommission — if I may use that word, which I commend to all Members — some of the more costly sources.
The Member for Newry and Armagh referred to Camlough Lake, which features in the section of the strategy that outlines the areas that will be decommissioned, and I am interested to hear the opinions of the district council and others.
Therefore, the issue arises of whether increased extraction from the identified sources would create a problem. The advice on which we based our conclusions was professional and used the accepted industry methods. If anyone danders outside, they will see that, at the minute, our loughs and reservoirs are replenished almost daily. There is no indication that additional extraction will cause problems for the sources that we identified.
I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to working, when we return in September, with the Committee as it considers the fuller report in more detail. I am happy for Committee members to have a summer break before they attempt to digest the strategy. If I were a member of the Committee, I would also want a break.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the Proposed Water Resource Strategy 2002-2030 Public Consultation Document.
Adjourned at 4.05 pm.